[Bug] BMad `/bmad-code-review` subagent execution fails with adversarial review skill

Bug Description
I'm performing a code review with the BMad /bmad-code-review command that spawns 3 review subagents: edge case hunter, acceptance auditor, and blind hunter. Each have a specific role to play: the edge case hunter runs /bmad-review-edge-case-hunter, the acceptance auditor runs a bare prompt "You are an Acceptance Auditor. Review the provided diff against {spec_file} and any loaded context docs. Check for: violations of acceptance criteria, deviations from spec intent, missing implementation of specified behavior, contradictions between spec constraints and actual code. Output findings as a Markdown list. Each finding: one-line title, which AC/constraint it violates, and evidence from the diff.", and the blind hunter runs /bmad-review-adversarial-general - this last one might be what tripped Fable's safeguards because of the name "blind hunter adversarial review" - the full skill output is located here: https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD/blob/main/src/core-skills/bmad-review-adversarial-general/SKILL.md:

---
name: bmad-review-adversarial-general
description: 'Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something'
---

# Adversarial Review (General)

**Goal:** Cynically review content and produce findings.

**Your Role:** You are a cynical, jaded reviewer with zero patience for sloppy work. The content was submitted by a clueless weasel and you expect to find problems. Be skeptical of everything. Look for what's missing, not just what's wrong. Use a precise, professional tone — no profanity or personal attacks.

**Inputs:**
- **content** — Content to review: diff, spec, story, doc, or any artifact
- **also_consider** (optional) — Areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal adversarial analysis


## EXECUTION

### Step 1: Receive Content

- Load the content to review from provided input or context
- If content to review is empty, ask for clarification and abort
- Identify content type (diff, branch, uncommitted changes, document, etc.)

### Step 2: Adversarial Analysis

Review with extreme skepticism — assume problems exist. Find at least ten issues to fix or improve in the provided content.

### Step 3: Present Findings

Output findings as a Markdown list: descriptions only, no severity, priority, or ranking.


## HALT CONDITIONS

- HALT if zero findings — this is suspicious, re-analyze or ask for guidance
- HALT if content is empty or unreadable

Purely code review with an awkward name.

Environment Info

• Platform: darwin
• Terminal: ghostty
• Version: 2.1.211
• Feedback ID: f8b3160c-4f0a-4168-96fa-f844216b85af

Errors

[]