القائمة
Use two independent agents for reviews or research, then collate findings to identify common findings, unique insights, and divergences
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use boolean decision trees instead of imperatives for 100% compliance under pressure
Use when creating or developing, before writing code or implementation plans - refines rough ideas into fully-formed designs through collaborative questioning, alternative exploration, and incremental validation. Don't use during clear 'mechanical' processes
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements - dispatches cipherpowers:code-review-agent subagent to review implementation against plan or requirements before proceeding
Establish workflow boundary checklists with clear pass/fail criteria and escalation procedures
Use when you've developed a broadly useful skill and want to contribute it upstream via pull request - guides process of branching, committing, pushing, and creating PR to contribute skills back to upstream repository
Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - creates isolated git worktrees with smart directory selection and safety verification
| name | dual-verification |
| description | Use two independent agents for reviews or research, then collate findings to identify common findings, unique insights, and divergences |
| when_to_use | comprehensive audits, plan reviews, code reviews, research tasks, codebase exploration, verifying content matches implementation, quality assurance for critical content |
| version | 1.0.0 |
Use two independent agents to systematically review content or research a topic, then use a collation agent to compare findings.
Core principle: Independent dual perspective + systematic collation = higher quality, managed context.
Announce at start: "I'm using the dual-verification skill for comprehensive [review/research]."
Use dual-verification when:
For Reviews:
For Research:
Don't use when:
| Phase | Action | Output | User Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Dispatch 2 agents in parallel | Two independent reports | Wait |
| Phase 2 | Collate findings, present to user | Collated report | Can /revise common |
| Phase 3 | Cross-check exclusive issues (background) | Validated exclusive issues | Can /revise exclusive or /revise all |
Confidence levels:
Exclusive issue states (after cross-check):
Higher quality through independence:
Context management:
Confidence progression:
/revise common)Parallel workflow:
/revise common while cross-check runs/revise exclusive or /revise allDispatch 2 agents in parallel with identical prompts.
Agent prompt template:
You are [agent type] conducting an independent verification review.
**Context:** You are one of two agents performing parallel independent reviews. Another agent is reviewing the same content independently. A collation agent will later compare both reviews.
**Your task:** Systematically verify [subject] against [ground truth].
**Critical instructions:**
- Current content CANNOT be assumed correct. Verify every claim.
- You MUST follow the review report template structure
- Template location: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}templates/verify-template.md
- You MUST save your review with timestamp: `.work/{YYYY-MM-DD}-verify-{type}-{HHmmss}.md`
- Time-based naming prevents conflicts when agents run in parallel.
- Work completely independently - the collation agent will find and compare all reviews.
**Process:**
1. Read the review report template to understand the expected structure
2. Read [subject] completely
3. For each [section/component/claim]:
- Identify what is claimed
- Verify against [ground truth]
- Check for [specific criteria]
4. Categorize issues by:
- Category ([issue type 1], [issue type 2], etc.)
- Location (file/section/line)
- Severity ([severity levels])
5. For each issue, provide:
- Current content (what [subject] says)
- Actual [ground truth] (what is true)
- Impact (why this matters)
- Action (specific recommendation)
6. Save using template structure with all required sections
**The template provides:**
- Complete structure for metadata, issues, summary, assessment
- Examples of well-written reviews
- Guidance on severity levels and categorization
Example: Documentation Review
Example: Plan Review
Example: Code Review
Dispatch collation agent to compare the two reviews, then present to user immediately.
Dispatch collation agent:
Use Task tool with:
subagent_type: "cipherpowers:review-collation-agent"
description: "Collate dual [review type] reviews"
prompt: "You are collating two independent [review type] reviews.
**Critical instructions:**
- You MUST follow the collation report template structure
- Template location: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}templates/verify-collation-template.md
- Read the template BEFORE starting collation
- Save to: `.work/{YYYY-MM-DD}-verify-{type}-collated-{HHmmss}.md`
**Inputs:**
- Review #1: [path to first review file]
- Review #2: [path to second review file]
**Your task:**
1. **Read the collation template** to understand the required structure
2. **Parse both reviews completely:**
- Extract all issues from Review #1
- Extract all issues from Review #2
- Create internal comparison matrix
3. **Identify common issues** (both found):
- Same issue found by both reviewers
- Confidence: VERY HIGH
4. **Identify exclusive issues** (only one found):
- Issues found only by Agent #1
- Issues found only by Agent #2
- Confidence: MODERATE (pending cross-check)
5. **Identify divergences** (agents disagree):
- Same location, different conclusions
- Contradictory findings
6. **IF divergences exist → Verify with appropriate agent:**
- Dispatch verification agent for each divergence
- Provide both perspectives and specific divergence point
- Incorporate verification analysis into report
7. **Follow template structure for output:**
- Metadata section (complete all fields)
- Executive summary (totals and breakdown)
- Common issues (VERY HIGH confidence)
- Exclusive issues (MODERATE confidence - pending cross-check)
- Divergences (with verification analysis)
- Recommendations (categorized by action type)
- Overall assessment
**The template provides:**
- Complete structure with all required sections
- Examples of well-written collation reports
- Guidance on confidence levels and categorization
- Usage notes for proper assessment
Present collated report to user immediately:
Collation complete. Report saved to: [path]
**Summary:**
- Common issues: X (VERY HIGH confidence) → Can `/revise common` now
- Exclusive issues: X (MODERATE - cross-check starting)
- Divergences: X (resolved/unresolved)
**Status:** Cross-check running in background...
User can now /revise common while cross-check runs.
Dispatch cross-check agent to validate exclusive issues against the codebase/implementation.
This phase runs in the background after presenting collation to user.
Purpose: Exclusive issues have MODERATE confidence because only one reviewer found them. Cross-check validates whether the issue actually exists by checking against ground truth.
Dispatch cross-check agent:
Use Task tool with:
subagent_type: "[appropriate agent for review type]"
description: "Cross-check exclusive issues"
prompt: "You are cross-checking exclusive issues from a dual-verification review.
**Context:**
Two independent reviewers performed a [review type] review. The collation identified
issues found by only one reviewer (exclusive issues). Your task is to validate
whether each exclusive issue actually exists.
**Collation report:** [path to collation file]
**Your task:**
For EACH exclusive issue in the collation report:
1. **Read the issue description** from the collation report
2. **Verify against ground truth:**
- For doc reviews: Check if the claim is accurate against codebase
- For code reviews: Check if the issue exists in the implementation
- For plan reviews: Check if the concern is valid against requirements
3. **Assign validation status:**
- VALIDATED: Issue confirmed to exist → should be addressed
- INVALIDATED: Issue does not apply → can be skipped
- UNCERTAIN: Cannot determine → escalate to user
**Output format:**
For each exclusive issue, provide:
- Issue: [from collation]
- Source: Reviewer #[1/2]
- Validation: [VALIDATED/INVALIDATED/UNCERTAIN]
- Evidence: [what you found that supports your conclusion]
- Recommendation: [action to take]
**Save to:** `.work/{YYYY-MM-DD}-verify-{type}-crosscheck-{HHmmss}.md`
Agent selection for cross-check:
| Review Type | Cross-check Agent |
|---|---|
| docs | cipherpowers:code-agent (verify against implementation) |
| code | cipherpowers:code-agent (verify against codebase) |
| plan | cipherpowers:plan-review-agent (verify against requirements) |
| execute | cipherpowers:execute-review-agent (verify against plan) |
When cross-check completes:
Cross-check complete. Report saved to: [path]
**Exclusive Issues Status:**
- VALIDATED: X issues (confirmed, should address)
- INVALIDATED: X issues (can skip)
- UNCERTAIN: X issues (user decides)
**Ready for:** `/cipherpowers:revise exclusive` or `/cipherpowers:revise all`
Update collation report with cross-check results:
Make the pattern flexible by specifying:
Subject: What to review
Ground truth: What to verify against
Agent type: Which specialized agent to use
Granularity: How to break down review
Severity levels: How to categorize issues
Skip dual verification when:
Use single agent when:
User: Review this implementation plan before execution
You: I'm using the dual-verification skill for comprehensive review.
Phase 1: Dual Independent Review
→ Dispatch 2 plan-review-agent agents in parallel
→ Each applies 35 quality criteria independently
→ Agent #1 finds: 3 BLOCKING issues, 7 NON-BLOCKING
→ Agent #2 finds: 4 BLOCKING issues, 5 NON-BLOCKING
Phase 2: Collate Findings and Present
→ Dispatch review-collation-agent
→ Collator compares both reviews
→ Present to user immediately:
Collated Report:
Common Issues (VERY HIGH):
- 2 BLOCKING issues both found
- 3 NON-BLOCKING issues both found
Exclusive Issues (MODERATE - cross-check starting):
- Agent #1 only: 1 BLOCKING, 4 NON-BLOCKING
- Agent #2 only: 2 BLOCKING, 2 NON-BLOCKING
Divergences: None
→ User notified: "Can `/revise common` now. Cross-check running..."
Phase 3: Cross-check Exclusive Issues (background)
→ Dispatch plan-review-agent to validate exclusive issues
→ For each exclusive issue, verify against requirements
→ Results:
- VALIDATED: 2 issues confirmed
- INVALIDATED: 3 issues don't apply
- UNCERTAIN: 1 issue needs user decision
→ User notified: "Cross-check complete. `/revise exclusive` or `/revise all`"
User: Audit README.md and CLAUDE.md for accuracy
You: I'm using the dual-verification skill for comprehensive documentation audit.
Phase 1: Dual Independent Review
→ Dispatch 2 technical-writer agents in parallel
→ Each verifies docs against codebase
→ Agent #1 finds: 13 issues (1 critical, 3 high, 6 medium, 3 low)
→ Agent #2 finds: 13 issues (4 critical, 1 high, 4 medium, 4 low)
Phase 2: Collate Findings and Present
→ Dispatch review-collation-agent
→ Identifies: 7 common, 6 exclusive, 0 divergences
→ Present to user immediately:
Collated Report:
Common Issues (VERY HIGH): 7
- Missing mise commands (CRITICAL)
- Incorrect skill path (MEDIUM)
- Missing /verify command (HIGH)
Exclusive Issues (MODERATE - cross-check starting): 6
- Agent #1 only: 3 issues
- Agent #2 only: 3 issues
→ User notified: "Can `/revise common` now. Cross-check running..."
Phase 3: Cross-check Exclusive Issues (background)
→ Dispatch code-agent to verify exclusive claims against codebase
→ Results:
- VALIDATED: 4 issues (paths really don't exist, examples really broken)
- INVALIDATED: 2 issues (files exist, agent #1 missed them)
- UNCERTAIN: 0 issues
→ User notified: "Cross-check complete. `/revise exclusive` or `/revise all`"
User: How does the authentication system work in this codebase?
You: I'm using the dual-verification skill for comprehensive research.
Phase 1: Dual Independent Research
→ Dispatch 2 Explore agents in parallel
→ Each investigates auth system independently
→ Agent #1 finds: JWT middleware, session handling, role-based access
→ Agent #2 finds: OAuth integration, token refresh, permission checks
Phase 2: Collate Findings and Present
→ Dispatch review-collation-agent
→ Identifies: 4 common findings, 3 unique insights, 1 divergence
→ Resolves divergence during collation
→ Present to user immediately:
Collated Report:
Common Findings (VERY HIGH): 4
- JWT tokens used for API auth (both found)
- Middleware in src/auth/middleware.ts (both found)
- Role enum defines permissions (both found)
- Refresh tokens stored in Redis (both found)
Exclusive Findings (MODERATE - cross-check starting): 3
- Agent #1: Found legacy session fallback for admin routes
- Agent #2: Found OAuth config for SSO integration
- Agent #2: Found rate limiting on auth endpoints
Divergence (RESOLVED):
- Token expiry: Agent #1 says 1 hour, Agent #2 says 24 hours
- → Verification: Config has 1h access + 24h refresh (both partially correct)
→ User notified: "Common findings ready. Cross-check running..."
Phase 3: Cross-check Exclusive Findings (background)
→ Dispatch Explore agent to verify exclusive claims
→ Results:
- VALIDATED: All 3 findings confirmed in codebase
- INVALIDATED: 0
- UNCERTAIN: 0
→ User notified: "Cross-check complete. All exclusive findings validated."
When to use this skill:
Related commands:
/cipherpowers:verify - Dispatches this skill for all verification types/cipherpowers:revise - Implements findings from verification (common, exclusive, all scopes)Other review skills:
Use dual-verification when stakes are high, use single-agent skills for regular work.
Mistake: "The reviews mostly agree, I'll skip detailed collation"
Mistake: "This exclusive issue is probably wrong since other reviewer didn't find it"
Mistake: "I'll combine both reviews myself instead of using collation agent"
Mistake: "Two agents is overkill, I'll just run one detailed review"
Mistake: "The divergence is minor, I'll pick one perspective"
/revise common)/revise common while cross-check runs