| 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 |
Dual Verification Review
Overview
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]."
When to Use
Use dual-verification when:
For Reviews:
- High-stakes decisions: Before executing implementation plans, merging to production, or deploying
- Comprehensive audits: Documentation accuracy, plan quality, code correctness
- Quality assurance: Critical content that must be verified against ground truth
- Risk mitigation: When cost of missing issues exceeds cost of dual review
For Research:
- Codebase exploration: Understanding unfamiliar code from multiple angles
- Problem investigation: Exploring a bug or issue with different hypotheses
- Information gathering: Researching a topic where completeness matters
- Architecture analysis: Understanding system design from different perspectives
- Building confidence: When you need high-confidence understanding before proceeding
Don't use when:
- Simple, low-stakes changes (typo fixes, minor documentation tweaks)
- Time-critical situations (production incidents requiring immediate action)
- Single perspective is sufficient (trivial updates, following up on previous review)
- Cost outweighs benefit (quick questions with obvious answers)
Quick Reference
| 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:
- VERY HIGH: Both agents found (high confidence - act on this)
- MODERATE: One agent found (unique insight - needs cross-check)
- INVESTIGATE: Agents disagree (resolved during collation)
Exclusive issue states (after cross-check):
- VALIDATED: Cross-check confirmed issue exists → implement
- INVALIDATED: Cross-check found issue doesn't apply → skip
- UNCERTAIN: Cross-check couldn't determine → user decides
Why This Pattern Works
Higher quality through independence:
- Common findings = high confidence (both found)
- Exclusive findings = unique insights one agent caught → validated by cross-check
- Divergences = resolved during collation
Context management:
- Two detailed reviews = lots of context
- Collation agent does comparison work
- Cross-check runs in background while user reviews
- Main context gets clean summary
Confidence progression:
- Both found → VERY HIGH → Fix immediately (
/revise common)
- One found → MODERATE → Cross-check validates → VALIDATED/INVALIDATED/UNCERTAIN
- Disagree → INVESTIGATE → Resolved during collation
Parallel workflow:
- User gets collation results immediately
- Can start
/revise common while cross-check runs
- Cross-check completes →
/revise exclusive or /revise all
The Three-Phase Process
Phase 1: Dual Independent Review
Dispatch 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
- Agent type: technical-writer
- Subject: README.md and CLAUDE.md
- Ground truth: current codebase implementation
- Criteria: file paths exist, commands work, examples accurate
Example: Plan Review
- Agent type: plan-review-agent
- Subject: implementation plan
- Ground truth: 35 quality criteria (security, testing, architecture, etc.)
- Criteria: blocking issues, non-blocking improvements
Example: Code Review
- Agent type: code-review-agent
- Subject: implementation code
- Ground truth: coding standards, plan requirements
- Criteria: meets requirements, follows standards, has tests
Phase 2: Collate Findings and Present
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.
Phase 3: Cross-check Exclusive Issues
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:** `/revise exclusive` or `/revise all`
Update collation report with cross-check results:
- Read original collation file
- Update exclusive issues section with validation status
- Save updated collation (overwrite or append cross-check section)
Parameterization
Make the pattern flexible by specifying:
Subject: What to review
- Documentation files (README.md, CLAUDE.md)
- Implementation plans (plan.md)
- Code changes (git diff, specific files)
- Test coverage (test files)
- Architecture decisions (design docs)
Ground truth: What to verify against
- Current implementation (codebase)
- Quality criteria (35-point checklist)
- Coding standards (practices)
- Requirements (specifications)
- Design documents (architecture)
Agent type: Which specialized agent to use
- technical-writer (documentation)
- plan-review-agent (plans)
- code-review-agent (code)
- rust-agent (Rust-specific)
- ultrathink-debugger (complex issues)
Granularity: How to break down review
- Section-by-section (documentation)
- Criteria-by-criteria (plan review)
- File-by-file (code review)
- Feature-by-feature (architecture review)
Severity levels: How to categorize issues
- critical/high/medium/low (general)
- BLOCKING/NON-BLOCKING (plan/code review)
- security/performance/maintainability (code review)
When NOT to Use
Skip dual verification when:
- Simple, low-stakes changes (typo fixes)
- Time-critical situations (production incidents)
- Single perspective sufficient (trivial updates)
- Cost outweighs benefit (minor documentation tweaks)
Use single agent when:
- Regular incremental updates
- Following up on dual review findings
- Implementing approved changes
Example Usage: Plan Review
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`"
Example Usage: Documentation Review
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`"
Example Usage: Codebase Research
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."
Related Skills
When to use this skill:
- Comprehensive reviews before major actions
- High-stakes decisions (execution, deployment, merge)
- Quality assurance for critical content
Related commands:
/cipherpowers:verify - Dispatches this skill for all verification types/cipherpowers:revise - Implements findings from verification (common, exclusive, all scopes)
Other review skills:
- verifying-plans: Single plan-review-agent (faster, less thorough)
- conducting-code-review: Single code-review-agent (regular reviews)
- maintaining-docs-after-changes: Single technical-writer (incremental updates)
Use dual-verification when stakes are high, use single-agent skills for regular work.
Common Mistakes
Mistake: "The reviews mostly agree, I'll skip detailed collation"
- Why wrong: Exclusive issues and subtle divergences matter
- Fix: Always use collation agent for systematic comparison
Mistake: "This exclusive issue is probably wrong since other reviewer didn't find it"
- Why wrong: May be valid edge case one reviewer caught
- Fix: Present with MODERATE confidence for user judgment, don't dismiss
Mistake: "I'll combine both reviews myself instead of using collation agent"
- Why wrong: Context overload, missing patterns, inconsistent categorization
- Fix: Always dispatch collation agent to handle comparison work
Mistake: "Two agents is overkill, I'll just run one detailed review"
- Why wrong: Missing the independence that catches different perspectives
- Fix: Use dual verification for high-stakes, single review for regular work
Mistake: "The divergence is minor, I'll pick one perspective"
- Why wrong: User needs to see both perspectives and make informed decision
- Fix: Mark as INVESTIGATE and let user decide
Remember
- Dispatch 2 agents in parallel for Phase 1 (efficiency)
- Use identical prompts for both agents (fairness)
- Dispatch collation agent for Phase 2 (context management)
- Present collation to user immediately after Phase 2 (user can
/revise common)
- Dispatch cross-check agent for Phase 3 in background (parallel workflow)
- Common issues = VERY HIGH confidence (both found) → implement immediately
- Exclusive issues = MODERATE confidence → cross-check validates → VALIDATED/INVALIDATED/UNCERTAIN
- Divergences = resolved during collation (verification agent determines correct perspective)
- Cross-check enables parallel workflow: user starts
/revise common while cross-check runs
- Cost-benefit: Use for high-stakes, skip for trivial changes
