anthropics / anthropics/claude-code
First-class "adversarial-verify + live-source check" review mode for multi-agent workflows
- 主要言語
- Python
- スター
- 145k
- フォーク
- 23.1k
- PR マージ指標
- PR 指標を取得中
説明
**Type:** enhancement · **Area:** multi-agent workflows / verification patterns
### Motivation
A repeatedly high-value workflow shape is: **produce, then adversarially verify against the source of truth.** Concretely, in a codebase audit:
1. A "mapper" agent extracts claims (invariants, risks, behaviors) from code + history + docs.
2. A separate "verifier" agent is instructed to *refute* each claim by opening the actual files.
3. Claims that survive are confirmed; claims marked `needs-live-db` are settled by read-only queries against the running system.
In real runs this caught defects the mapper asserted confidently, **and** corrected the verifier itself — a claim derived from static source (a migration file) was wrong about the live system, and only the read-only production check surfaced the truth. Neither single agent, and no static-only pass, would have caught it.
### Proposed feature
A documented, first-class pattern / helper for "generate → adversarial-verify → live-source settle," including:
- a verifier role prompt template that defaults to skepticism (refute-by-default, cite `file:line`),
- a structured verdict schema (`confirmed` / `refuted` / `partly-true` / `needs-live-db`),
- guidance/guardrails for a **read-only** live-source settle step (e.g. enforced read-only transactions) so verification against a running system is safe by construction.
### Why it helps everyone
"One agent confidently produces a plausible-but-wrong artifact" is the central failure mode of LLM automation. Making adversarial verification a supported, low-friction mode — rather than something each author hand-rolls — raises the floor on trustworthiness for audits, reviews, migrations, and research.
*Filed from real multi-agent workflow usage.*
コントリビューションガイド
このリポジトリのコントリビューションガイドは索引されていません
調査の方向性
The issue names no files or tests; start by getting maintainer agreement on whether this should be a documented pattern, a helper, or both. Use the proposed pieces as acceptance criteria: skeptical verifier prompt citing file:line, structured verdict schema, and read-only live-source guardrails. Done means the workflow is first-class and documented with safe settle behavior.
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
評価
- 技術スタック
- ai-infra-agents, python
- 領域
- ai-infra-agents, developer-experience, documentation
- issue の種類
- 機能追加
- 難易度
- 5/5
- 見積もり時間
- 1週間以上
- 活発さ
- 活発
- 明瞭さ
- おおむね明確
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 28/100