# I stopped trusting Claude's code reviews, so I built a skill that puts my code on trial > Source: > Published: 2026-06-13 07:32:35+00:00 Every time I asked Claude to review my branch, I got one of two answers: a cheerful **"Looks good! 👍"** or a vague list where I couldn't tell a real bug from a matter of taste. The model wants to please you. That's exactly the problem. So I built **Tribunal** — a Claude skill that reviews your diff *adversarially*, in stages, where the honest signal comes from agents fighting each other instead of one polite model. A single model told to "be critical" still hedges — it's trained to be agreeable. So instead of one balanced reviewer, Tribunal runs **one-sided roles that collide**: One agent per file, deliberately biased. It tears the diff apart as if a clueless amateur wrote it — focused only on what changed. But strictly on the merits: correctness, races, leaks, edge cases, security. No style nitpicks. Per-file haters are blind to cross-module bugs. A separate agent hunts exactly those: a changed function signature whose caller still calls the old way, a return shape a consumer no longer matches, invariants out of sync across files. For each accusation, the judge digs into the actual code and decides honestly: was this **deliberate and justified**, or **genuinely weak**? It's allowed to use docs and comments as evidence of intent — the opposite of the hater, who ignores them as excuses. Keeps only the spots the judge **couldn't defend** — or conceded are weak even while defending the choice. Everything else drops to a full transcript. The balance doesn't live inside any single agent — it comes from the clash *between* them. A hater that can **only** attack, meeting a judge that **only** looks for justification, produces a sharper, more honest signal than one model trying to be "balanced" on its own. And the hater is allowed to return nothing. On a clean diff it's not forced to invent problems — empty is a valid, honest result. A ranked report written to `docs/reviews/` , plus a short chat summary: what to actually fix, by severity (critical → major → minor), with a concrete fix for each. It's **portable** — pure Claude sub-agents (the `Agent` tool), no external runtime, no dependencies. Works in **Claude Code** and **Claude Cowork**, in any language (Python, JS/TS, Go, Rust, Java… one config line to add yours). It's MIT and free: [https://github.com/hekman316/claude-skill-tribunal](https://github.com/hekman316/claude-skill-tribunal) Install is one paste — ask Claude to fetch the `SKILL.md` from the repo and drop it in `~/.claude/skills/` . Then in any repo just say `/tribunal` . I'm genuinely curious what people think of the adversarial-roles approach. Does forcing the model into one-sided roles actually beat just asking it to be harsh? Would love feedback — or attempts to break it.