Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
Unified skill for selecting review types, spawning multi-perspective and cognitive review agents,
and managing quality gates. Consolidates 5 granular skills into a single review system.
Standalone usage: Review orchestration works independently for multi-perspective reviews.
Integration with failure-memory enables automatic observation recording from review findings.
Data handling: This skill operates within your agent's trust boundary. When triggered,
it uses your agent's configured model for multi-perspective review orchestration. No external APIs
or third-party services are called. Review results are written to docs/reviews/ in your workspace.
What This Solves
One perspective has blind spots. This skill coordinates multiple review perspectives to catch what single-pass review misses:
Twin review — technical and creative perspectives for balance
Cognitive modes — analyzer ("what conflicts"), architect ("how to restructure"), implementer ("how to implement")
The insight: N=2 catches more than N=1. Different perspectives see different things. Coordinate them systematically.
Note: "Cognitive modes" are review perspectives with different analytical focus, not
external API calls. Mode names (analyzer, architect, implementer) describe the review
approach, not specific AI models or services.
Usage
/ro <sub-command> [arguments]
Sub-Commands
Command
CJK
Logic
Trigger
/ro select
選択
context×risk→type∈{twin,cognitive,code}
Explicit
/ro twin
双子
spawn(technical,creative)→findings[]
Explicit
/ro cognitive
認知
spawn(modes[])→analysis[]
Explicit
/ro multi
双視
alias for /ro twin (multi-perspective review)
Explicit
/ro gate
門番
staged_work→pass✓∨block✗
Explicit
Arguments
/ro select
Argument
Required
Description
context
Yes
Description of work to review
--risk
No
Risk level: low, medium, high (auto-detected if omitted)
Alias for /ro twin. The name "twin" refers to the dual-perspective review pattern
(technical + creative), not a specific team structure. /ro multi is provided for
discoverability by users unfamiliar with the "twin" terminology.
/ro gate
Argument
Required
Description
stage
Yes
Stage name or number to gate
--strict
No
Require all checks pass (default: true)
--allow-minor
No
Allow minor issues to pass
Core Logic
Review Type Selection
Context
Risk
Recommended Review
Implementation
Low
/ro twin --technical-only
Implementation
Medium
/ro twin (both perspectives)
Implementation
High
/ro twin + /ro cognitive
Architecture
Any
/ro cognitive
Documentation
Any
/ro twin --creative-only
Security
Any
/ro cognitive + external review
Multi-Perspective Review
Perspective
Focus
CJK
Technical
Architecture, standards, patterns, security
技術
Creative
UX, communication, philosophy alignment
創造
Cognitive Modes
Cognitive modes provide different analytical perspectives. Modes are configurable;
defaults shown below.
Mode
Perspective
Focus
CJK
analyzer
"Here's what conflicts"
Tensions, trade-offs, contradictions
審碼
architect
"Here's how to restructure"
Architecture, patterns, organization
審構
implementer
"Here's how to implement"
Concrete steps, complexity, path forward
審実
Note: Mode names are perspective-based, not model-specific. The underlying model
used for each mode is configurable (see Configuration section below).
Configuration
Configuration is loaded from (in order of precedence):
# .openclaw/review-orchestrator.yamlcognitive_modes:-id:analyzerperspective:"Here's what conflicts"prompt_prefix:"Analyze tensions, trade-offs, and conflicts in..."model_hint:"prefer analytical model"-id:architectperspective:"Here's how to restructure"prompt_prefix:"Suggest architectural improvements for..."model_hint:"prefer architectural model"-id:implementerperspective:"Here's how to implement"prompt_prefix:"Provide implementation guidance for..."model_hint:"prefer practical model"
Quality Gate Configuration
# .openclaw/review-orchestrator.yamlquality_gates:test_command:"npm test"# Node.js (default)# test_command: "go test ./..." # Go# test_command: "pytest" # Python# test_command: "cargo test" # Rustcoverage_threshold:5# Max allowed coverage drop (%)require_docs:true# Require documentation updates
Quality Gate Checks
Check
Condition
Severity
Tests pass
{test_command} exit 0
Critical
Coverage maintained
delta ≤ {coverage_threshold}%
Important
No critical findings
review.critical == 0
Critical
Docs updated
changed files have docs (if require_docs)
Minor
Checks use configured values from quality_gates section. Defaults: test_command=npm test,
coverage_threshold=5, require_docs=true.
Output
/ro select output
[REVIEW SELECTION]
Context: "Refactoring authentication handler"
Risk: Medium (auto-detected: changes auth code)
Recommended: /ro twin
Rationale: Medium-risk implementation benefits from both technical and creative perspectives.
Alternative: /ro cognitive (for deeper architectural analysis)
/ro twin output
[MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW INITIATED]
Target: src/handlers/auth.go
Perspectives: technical, creative
--- Technical Perspective Findings ---
Severity: important
- I-1: Missing error handling on line 45
- I-2: Consider extracting validation logic
Severity: minor
- M-1: Inconsistent naming convention
--- Creative Perspective Findings ---
Severity: minor
- M-1: Error messages could be more user-friendly
- M-2: Consider adding debug logging for operators
Verdict: Approved with conditions
/ro cognitive output
[COGNITIVE REVIEW INITIATED]
Target: docs/architecture/auth-flow.md
Modes: analyzer, architect, implementer
--- Analyzer Perspective (Conflicts) ---
- Tension between security and usability in token refresh
- Trade-off: session duration vs re-auth frequency
--- Architect Perspective (Restructure) ---
- Suggested: Extract token service from handler
- Benefit: Cleaner separation of concerns
--- Implementer Perspective (Implement) ---
- Implementation path: 3 stages
- Estimated complexity: Medium
Verdict: Approved
Configuration files in .openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml and .claude/review-orchestrator.yaml
Target files specified by user for review (read-only)
Its own output directory docs/reviews/
What this skill does NOT access:
Files outside declared workspace paths
System environment variables
Network resources or external APIs
Other tools' configuration
What this skill does NOT do:
Invoke AI models directly (instruction-only skill)
Call external services (Codex, Gemini, or any third-party API)
Send data to external services
Modify files outside its workspace (only writes to docs/reviews/)
Execute arbitrary code
Cognitive modes clarification:
Mode names like "analyzer", "architect", and "implementer" describe review perspectives
(analytical approaches), NOT external AI services. The skill provides prompts and structure;
your agent executes the review using its configured model.
Configuration files:
The config files (.openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml and .claude/review-orchestrator.yaml)
contain only local behavior settings (cognitive mode definitions, quality gate thresholds).
They do NOT contain API keys, tokens, or external service endpoints by design.
Dependency clarification:
References to failure-memory and context-verifier are skill-level dependencies installed
via openclaw install. These are separate instruction-only skills with their own declared
permissions — this skill does not grant them additional access or inherit their permissions.
Provenance note:
This skill is developed by Live Neon (https://github.com/live-neon/skills) and published
to ClawHub under the leegitw account. Both refer to the same maintainer.
Acceptance Criteria
/ro select recommends appropriate review type based on context and risk
/ro twin (or /ro multi) spawns both technical and creative perspectives
/ro twin aggregates findings from both perspectives
