omcustomcodex-agora

name	omcustomcodex:agora
description	Multi-LLM adversarial consensus loop — 3+ LLMs compete to find flaws in designs/specs until unanimous agreement is reached
user-invocable	true
argument-hint	<document-path> [--rounds N] [--severity-threshold HIGH]
effort	max
scope	core
version	1.0.0
source	{"type":"external","origin":"github","url":"https://github.com/baekenough/baekenough-skills","version":"1.0.0"}

Agora: Multi-LLM Adversarial Consensus

3개 이상의 LLM(Claude, Codex/GPT, Gemini)이 경쟁적으로 설계/문서의 결함을 찾고, 만장일치 합의에 도달할 때까지 반복하는 적대적 교차 검증 스킬.

Prerequisites

• codex-exec skill (Codex/GPT 호출)
• gemini-exec skill (Gemini 호출)
• Agent Teams enabled (OMCODEX_AGENT_TEAMS=1) or Agent tool available

Usage

/omcustomcodex:agora docs/design.md                           # Default: 3 LLMs, unlimited rounds
/omcustomcodex:agora docs/design.md --rounds 10               # Max 10 rounds
/omcustomcodex:agora docs/design.md --severity-threshold HIGH # Exit when no HIGH+ findings
/omcustomcodex:agora docs/design.md --models claude,codex     # 2 LLMs only

Workflow

Phase 1: Setup

1. Read the target document
2. Create Agent Team: TeamCreate("agora-review")
3. Create review tasks per focus area

Phase 2: Spawn Reviewers (parallel)

Spawn 3 reviewers as Agent Team members:

### Anti-Groupthink Mode

Use `--anti-groupthink` when consensus itself is a risk:

1. Reviewers submit independent findings before seeing peer output.
2. One reviewer is assigned as devil's advocate.
3. Minority findings are preserved unless the synthesis explicitly rejects them with evidence.
4. Debate is capped at two challenge rounds before the lead either decides or requests more facts.

For decisions where dissent preservation is the main goal, use `roundtable-debate` directly instead of `agora`.
Agent(name: "claude-critic", model: opus, effort: max)
  → 20-point deep adversarial review
  
Agent(name: "codex-critic", model: opus)
  → Invoke Skill(codex-exec) for GPT perspective + independent Claude analysis
  
Agent(name: "gemini-critic", model: opus)  
  → Invoke Skill(gemini-exec) for Gemini perspective + independent Claude analysis

Phase 3: Independent Review

Each reviewer performs adversarial review with this template:

For EACH review point:
### Round N: [Topic]
**Severity**: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
**Flaw**: [Specific, concrete problem description]
**Evidence**: [Why this is real, not theoretical]
**Impact**: [What happens if not addressed]
**Counter-argument**: [Best case FOR the current design]
**Verdict**: KEEP / MODIFY / REJECT

Review areas (adapt to document type):

• Architecture fundamentals
• Component/service design
• Data architecture
• Security & resilience
• Feasibility & deployment
• Testing strategy
• Operational complexity

Phase 4: Cross-Review (Peer-to-Peer)

Each reviewer sends findings to the other two via SendMessage.

Counter-review template:

1. Which findings do you AGREE with? (and why)
2. Which findings do you DISAGREE with? (evidence-based rebuttal)
3. What did they MISS that you caught?
4. What did they catch that you MISSED?
5. SEVERITY adjustments — upgrade or downgrade with justification

Phase 5: Synthesis

Team lead aggregates all findings:

UNANIMOUS CRITICAL: [findings all 3 agreed on]
STRONG AGREEMENT:   [findings 2/3 agreed on]
SPLIT DECISIONS:    [findings with disagreement + resolution]

Determine verdict:

• BUILD: No CRITICAL, no unresolved HIGH
• BUILD WITH CHANGES: No CRITICAL, HIGH findings have accepted mitigations
• REDESIGN: Any unresolved CRITICAL findings
• ABANDON: Fundamental concept is flawed

Phase 6: Loop (if REDESIGN)

1. Team lead produces/delegates redesign addressing ALL critical findings
2. New version sent to ALL reviewers: SendMessage(to: "*")
3. Reviewers re-review → GOTO Phase 4
4. Repeat until EXIT criteria met

Phase 7: Exit (consensus reached)

When ALL reviewers agree BUILD or BUILD WITH CHANGES:

1. Produce final consensus report
2. Write to .codex/outputs/sessions/{date}/agora-{topic}-{time}.md
3. Shut down team: SendMessage(to: "*", message: {type: "shutdown_request"})

Reviewer Principles

1. NEUTRAL — no reviewer has home team advantage
2. COMPETITIVE — find flaws others missed
3. CRITICAL — "fewer than 5 CRITICAL flaws = not looking hard enough"
4. EVIDENCE-BASED — every finding cites specific evidence
5. CONSTRUCTIVE — every flaw includes recommended fix
6. CONVERGENT — goal is consensus, not endless disagreement

Consensus Criteria

Condition	Required
CRITICAL findings resolved	ALL
HIGH findings resolved or accepted	ALL
All reviewers rate BUILD or BUILD WITH CHANGES	YES
Cross-review disagreements resolved	ALL

Output Format

# Agora Consensus Report

## Document: [path]
## Rounds: [N]
## Reviewers: [list with LLM models used]

## Verdict: [BUILD / BUILD WITH CHANGES / REDESIGN]

## Unanimous Findings
| # | Finding | Severity | All 3 Agree |
|---|---------|----------|-------------|

## Required Changes Before Build
1. [change with source reviewer]
2. ...

## Accepted Risks
- [finding accepted with justification]

## Unique Contributions Per Reviewer
| Reviewer | Findings Others Missed |
|----------|----------------------|

## Process Metrics
- Rounds: N
- Total findings: N
- Cross-adopted: N
- Severity upgrades: N
- Severity downgrades: N
- Disagreements raised: N
- Disagreements resolved: N/N

Configuration

# Default settings
agora:
  max_rounds: unlimited       # Set --rounds to limit
  severity_threshold: HIGH    # EXIT when no findings >= threshold
  models:
    - claude (opus, max effort)
    - codex (via codex-exec skill)
    - gemini (via gemini-exec skill)
  review_points: 20           # Per reviewer
  cross_review: true          # Peer-to-peer sharing
  auto_redesign: true         # Auto-produce redesign on REDESIGN verdict

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Why Wrong	Correct
Single LLM review	Misses blind spots	3+ LLMs find complementary flaws
No cross-review	Reviewers don't challenge each other	Peer-to-peer sharing surfaces disagreements
Accepting first BUILD	May miss edge cases	Loop until ALL agree
Ignoring split decisions	Unresolved disagreements fester	Resolve every split with evidence
Push for consensus too fast	Premature agreement	Let reviewers challenge freely