Skill flagged — suspicious patterns detected

ClawHub Security flagged this skill as suspicious. Review the scan results before using.

Red Team

v1.0.0

Adversarial multi-agent debate engine for stress-testing decisions, ideas, and strategies. Orchestrates multiple AI agents with conflicting worldviews (bull,...

0· 443· 1 versions· 2 current· 2 all-time· Updated 1h ago· MIT-0

Red Team — Adversarial Debate Engine

Stress-test any decision by having AI agents with conflicting worldviews debate it.

Prerequisites

One of these coding agent CLIs (uses your existing subscription — no API key needed):

  • Claude Code (default): claudenpm i -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code
  • Codex: codexnpm i -g @openai/codex
  • Gemini: gemininpm i -g @google/gemini-cli

No Python dependencies beyond the standard library.

Quick Start

# Basic 3-persona debate (uses Max subscription via claude CLI)
python3 ~/.openclaw/skills/red-team/scripts/red-team.py \
  --question "Should we do X?" \
  --personas "bull,bear,operator"

# Full debate with context and output file
python3 ~/.openclaw/skills/red-team/scripts/red-team.py \
  -q "Should we invest $50k in this deal?" \
  -p "bull,bear,cash-flow,local-realist" \
  -r 3 \
  -c /path/to/deal-data.md \
  -o /tmp/red-team-result.md

# Use a different model
python3 ~/.openclaw/skills/red-team/scripts/red-team.py \
  -q "Should we launch this product?" \
  -p "bull,customer,operator" \
  -m opus

# List all available personas
python3 ~/.openclaw/skills/red-team/scripts/red-team.py --list-personas

How to Use (as OpenClaw Agent)

When the user asks you to "red team" something, "stress test" an idea, play "devil's advocate", or asks "what could go wrong":

  1. Identify the question/decision from the user's message
  2. Choose appropriate personas (default: bull,bear,operator — adjust based on domain)
  3. Run the script and save output
  4. Summarize the key findings to the user, share the full report if requested

Persona selection guide:

  • Investment/financial decisions → bull, bear, cash-flow, economist
  • Product/startup ideas → bull, customer, operator, technologist
  • Legal/compliance questions → regulator, bear, operator
  • Strategy/direction → contrarian, economist, historian, bull
  • General "should we do X?" → bull, bear, operator (good default)

Available Personas

KeyNameWorldview
bullThe BullOptimistic, opportunity-focused
bearThe BearRisk-averse, capital preservation
contrarianThe ContrarianOppositional, consensus-challenging
operatorThe OperatorExecution-focused pragmatist
economistThe EconomistMacro trends, opportunity cost
local-realistThe Local RealistGround truth, local specifics
cash-flowThe Cash Flow AnalystIncome, carrying costs, IRR
regulatorThe RegulatorCompliance, legal risk
technologistThe TechnologistAutomation, scalability
customerThe CustomerEnd-user demand, willingness to pay
ethicistThe EthicistMoral implications, stakeholder impact
historianThe HistorianHistorical patterns, precedent

Custom Personas

Create a JSON file:

{
  "my-persona": {
    "name": "The Skeptic",
    "description": "Questions everything, trusts nothing",
    "system": "You are The Skeptic — you question every assumption..."
  }
}

Use with --custom-personas /path/to/file.json. Custom personas merge with built-ins.

CLI Options

FlagDefaultDescription
--question, -qrequiredThe question to debate
--personas, -pbull,bear,operatorComma-separated persona keys
--rounds, -r2Number of critique rounds
--output, -ostdoutOutput file path
--context-file, -cnoneAdditional context file
--custom-personasnoneCustom personas JSON
--model, -msonnetModel alias (sonnet, opus, haiku, gpt-4o, etc.)
--backend, -bclaudeCLI backend: claude, codex, or gemini
--list-personasList personas and exit

Output Structure

The output is a markdown document with:

  1. Initial Proposals — Each agent's independent take
  2. Critique Rounds — Agents critique each other
  3. Refinement — Agents update positions based on critiques
  4. Conviction Scores — Each agent scores all positions (0-100)
  5. Synthesis & Decision Brief — Neutral agent produces:
    • Executive summary
    • Consensus points
    • Key disagreements
    • Risk matrix
    • Conviction score summary
    • Synthesized recommendation
    • Next steps

When to Use

Good for: Important decisions, investment analysis, product strategy, "go/no-go" calls, pre-mortems, challenging groupthink

Not for: Simple factual questions, time-sensitive emergencies, decisions already made, emotional/personal choices

Integration Tips

  • Save output to memory files for future reference
  • Create BEADS tasks from the "Next Steps" section
  • Feed context files from Obsidian or project docs
  • Re-run with different personas for different perspectives
  • Use --rounds 1 for quick takes, --rounds 3 for deep analysis

Version tags

latestvk973g8xc8j7qxx8mt0xayv85fs820rke