sc30gsw/vcsdd-adversarial-refinement

VCSDD Adversarial Refinement

When to Activate

• Phase 3 (adversarial review)
• Interpreting adversary findings
• Calibrating review intensity

Adversary Calibration Principles

The Adversary MUST:

1. Never say "overall looks good" or equivalent
2. Always cite real file paths and line numbers
3. Always produce a binary PASS or FAIL per dimension
4. Never soften findings with qualifiers like "minor" or "nitpick"
5. Always specify routeToPhase for actionable routing

Severity Classification

| Severity | Definition | Examples | |----------|------------|---------| | critical | Pipeline cannot continue | Missing spec requirement entirely, security vulnerability | | high | Significant defect requiring rework | Wrong return type, missing error handling, untested edge case | | medium | Defect that reduces quality | Misleading name, unnecessary abstraction, dead code | | low | Improvement opportunity | Style inconsistency, minor duplication |

Common Leniency Traps

Watch for these patterns and reject them:

• "The code handles most cases" → HOW MANY? WHICH ONES MISSING?
• "Error handling is adequate" → ADEQUATE BY WHAT STANDARD?
• "Generally follows the spec" → WHICH REQUIREMENTS ARE MISSING?
• "Minor refactoring could help" → IS THIS STRUCTURAL_INTEGRITY FAIL OR NOT?

Finding Routing Guide

| Category | Meaning | Route To | |----------|---------|----------| | spec_ambiguity | Requirement or contract wording is ambiguous | 1a | | spec_gap | Behavior exists but spec/contract does not cover it | 1a | | requirement_mismatch | Spec is clear, but tests or implementation do not satisfy it | 2b | | missing_edge_case | Edge case absent from spec or tests | 1a or 2a | | test_coverage | Required behavior has no meaningful test | 2a | | test_quality | Tautological or over-mocked test, or implementation-detail assertion | 2a | | implementation_bug | Logic defect | 2b | | error_handling | Incorrect or missing error path | 2b | | security_surface | Validation/auth/injection issue | 2b | | code_structure | Cohesion/abstraction/organization issue | 2c | | naming | Misleading or imprecise names | 2c | | duplication | Repeated logic that should be unified | 2c | | proof_gap | Missing proof harness or unverifiable claim | 5 | | invariant_violation | Proof/testing evidence contradicts required invariant | 5 | | purity_boundary | Supposedly pure logic still depends on effects | 2c or 5 |