# Kill Argument

Two-thread adversarial review: a fresh reviewer constructs the strongest 200-word...

- Repository: https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep (18443 stars)
- Category: Engineering
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-11-01
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill kill-argument -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill kill-argument -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill kill-argument -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill kill-argument -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep`

## Description

Two-thread adversarial review: a fresh reviewer constructs the strongest 200-word rejection memo, then a second fresh reviewer defends the paper point-by-point and surfaces still-unresolved critical issues. Use when user says \"kill argument\", \"adversarial review\", \"hostile review\", \"rebuttal preparation\", \"reviewer-2 simulation\", or before submitting a theory paper that has already passed standard review rounds.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Kill Argument Exercise: Adversarial Attack-Defense Review

> **Before each reviewer slot**, follow [Selectable Reviewers](../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md):
> resolve invocation → `.aris/reviewer.json` → Claude Code default (Codex MCP)
> with `reviewer_route.py` through the canonical helper resolver, preserving this
> slot's tier, fresh contexts, source/image inputs and deterministic gates.
> Codex examples/pins below apply only to `backend=codex`; other routes use their
> own first-call/reply contract. Save the route and actual returned identity;
> unavailable selections are `REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE`. Classify acceptance from actual
> families/completion/scope. Forward invocation reviewer/model/effort overrides
> to reviewer-bearing children. Generation workers are unchanged.


> 🔒 **Do not wrap this skill in `/loop`, `/schedule`, or `CronCreate`.** It is
> verdict-bearing, it produces an adversarial accept/reject verdict (attack →
> adjudication). Re-firing it on a wall-clock timer adds no new signal (the
> attack changes only when the *paper* changes). Schedule the *external wait
> that precedes it*, draft stable → then run this **once** before submission.
> See
> [`shared-references/external-cadence.md`](../shared-references/external-cadence.md).

Stress-test the headline claims of a paper against the strongest possible rejection argument: **$ARGUMENTS**

## Why This Exists

Standard score-based reviews (`/research-review`, `/auto-paper-improvement-loop`) tend to produce **balanced** weakness lists.  Each weakness gets ~equal attention, ranked CRITICAL > MAJOR > MINOR.  Empirically, this misses one specific failure mode: the **single most damaging argument** a reviewer would write in a rejection paragraph, the one sentence that, if a senior area chair reads it, kills the paper.

The rest: https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/blob/HEAD/skills/kill-argument/SKILL.md