triangulate-spec-review

name	triangulate-spec-review
description	Review and improve architecture specs, ADRs, plugin or agent directory proposals, and other design documents by running multiple independent AI reviewers such as Claude, Qoder, Codex, or Cursor Agent against the same artifact, normalizing P1/P2/P3 findings, and iterating only on blocking or high-risk issues.

Triangulate Spec Review

Use independent AI reviewers as an evaluation surface for specs. The lead agent owns synthesis, edits, validation, and the final recommendation.

Workflow

1. Resolve the target spec path and the acceptance gate. If the user did not name dimensions, default to complexity, convenience, and evolution.
2. Read the target spec and nearby repo instructions. Do not pass your suspected fixes or conclusions to reviewers.
3. Use the same read-only prompt for every reviewer. Ask for structured P1/P2/P3 findings and a p1_p2_clear boolean.
4. Run at least two reviewers; prefer three when available. Use scripts/run-triad-review.mjs for repeatable local runs.
5. Normalize findings. Treat reviewers as evidence, not authority: fix convergent P1/P2 issues first, challenge weak or contradictory findings, and leave P3 as backlog unless it is cheap and clarifying.
6. If the user asked for edits, patch only the owning spec or directly related helper docs. Keep unrelated refactors out of the review loop.
7. Run local validation such as git diff --check, relevant tests, and targeted rg checks for renamed concepts or stale paths.
8. Repeat the reviewer pass until every requested reviewer reports no P1 or P2, or until the user stops the loop.

Resources

• Read references/review-loop.md for the prompt contract, severity rubric, command matrix, and iteration patterns.
• Run this skill's scripts/run-triad-review.mjs --target <path> script, resolved relative to the triangulate-spec-review skill directory, to execute a read-only review round and write normalized JSON output.

Guardrails

• Pass raw artifacts and task-local context to reviewers, not intended answers.
• Keep every reviewer prompt materially identical unless a tool requires command syntax changes.
• Do not let reviewers edit files. The lead agent applies changes after comparing findings.
• Do not declare acceptance from an average score. Acceptance requires no P1/P2 findings from the required review surface.