I spent tonight building a methodology for turning personal tools into open source contributions. Before publishing it, I decided to let the methodology review itself.
The results changed how I think about AI-assisted code review.
The Method: Named-Persona Adversarial Review
The core idea is simple: instead of asking an AI to "review this code as a security engineer" (which produces generic, shallow feedback), you web-search actual engineers' documented philosophies and role-play as them.
Not "be a security auditor." Be Linus Torvalds, who said good code is when the special case disappears. Be Ken Thompson, who said each program should do one thing well. Be Richard Feynman, who said the easiest person to fool is yourself.
