name	peanut-gallery-review
description	Multi-model code review with two rounds — initial review, triage/fix, then rebuttal review. Orchestrates cursor agents to review your active changes from multiple perspectives. Use when the user says "let the peanut gallery review", "peanut gallery review", "cross-review", "multi-review", "multi-model review", or asks for a review from multiple agents/models.

Peanut Gallery Code Review

Persona-driven two-round code review using Cursor agents. Round 1 collects reviews, you triage and fix, Round 2 validates rebuttals.

Uses cursor-agent-multi.py from the sibling ask-the-peanut-gallery skill directory. See its SKILL.md for script usage and prerequisites.

Prerequisites

The workspace needs .cursor/cli.json. If missing, copy cli.sample.json from the ask-the-peanut-gallery skill directory into <workspace>/.cursor/cli.json. If it already exists, diff it against cli.sample.json and update it if the sample has newer entries.

Before launching agents, verify that cli.json actually covers what the project needs. Check that:

Test runners the project uses (e.g. ctest, pytest, ninja check-*) are in the allow list
Build directory paths in the allow list match the project's actual build directory layout (e.g. ./build/** won't help if the build dir is ../build-release/)
The --workspace passed to cursor-agent-multi.py sets the agents' working directory. It should be a parent that covers both the repo and build directories. Tell agents in the prompt which subdirectory is the repo root (for git -C) and where the build directory is

Prompt boilerplate

Every prompt sent to agents MUST include all three of these elements:

Persona preamble (at the start of each prompt):

=== REVIEWER PERSONA ===
You are reviewing code as the following reviewer. Adopt their expertise,
review style, priorities, and feedback patterns throughout your review.

{{PERSONA}}

=== END PERSONA ===

The {{PERSONA}} placeholder is resolved per-agent from the PERSONA key in the --agents JSON — each agent gets their own persona content injected.

Test execution reporting (append after round-specific instructions):

At the end of your review, include a section titled '## Test Execution'.
Report what tests you attempted to run (commands, file paths), whether they
succeeded or failed, and any output. If you could not run tests (e.g.
permission errors, missing build tools, missing build artifacts), say so
explicitly and explain what blocked you. If you chose not to run any tests,
state that and why. This section is mandatory.

Non-interactive notice (include verbatim in every prompt):

You are running non-interactively. No human will see your questions or reply.
Never ask for clarification. Make reasonable assumptions and state them. If a
tool call fails, try alternative invocations before giving up. Provide a
complete answer no matter what.

Steps

Step 1A — Review directory

Create a uniquely-named directory under /tmp/ for this review session. All intermediate files go here. Do not create it inside the git working tree. Referenced as <REVIEW_DIR> below.

Step 1B — Determine what to review

Figure out the active change — staged changes, uncommitted work, or recent commits on a feature branch. Check multiple repos if needed.

Show the user the diff stat and confirm. Record the exact git commands needed to reproduce the diff — agents will need these in Steps 2 and 3.

Step 1C — Select reviewers

Pick 4 personas from personas/. Do NOT read full persona files — only read YAML frontmatter (head -10) to extract name and models.

Classify: a persona is "expert" if their models list includes any opus or high-tier gpt variant (e.g. gpt-5.*-high, gpt-5.*-xhigh). All others are "generic."
Auto-pick: 1 expert + 3 generic. For each persona, pick one model from their list, avoiding duplicate models across the panel.
Override with user-requested personas if specified.
Show the panel before proceeding.

Build the --agents JSON array. Each entry needs name, model, and PERSONA (the persona filename):

[
  {"name": "merlin", "model": "opus-4.6-thinking", "PERSONA": "merlin.md"},
  {"name": "petra",  "model": "composer-1.5",      "PERSONA": "petra.md"},
  ...
]

Step 1D — Ensure project builds

Build the project before launching agents — they have limited permissions and need fresh build artifacts. If the build fails, stop and report.

Step 2 — Round 1: Initial review

Run cursor-agent-multi.py with --task review-round1, --output-dir <REVIEW_DIR>, the agents JSON, and --include-dir pointing to personas/.

Round-specific instructions to include in the prompt:

The exact git commands to obtain the diff (from Step 1B)
"Review this diff. For each issue: file and line(s), problem, severity (critical / suggestion / nit), concrete fix. Note anything done well."

Do NOT paste the diff — agents have git access and will run the commands. After completion, read every output.md.

Step 3 — Triage and fix

Read all Round 1 reviews and process them:

Group suggestions by theme.
For each, decide: apply or disregard.
- Apply: make the fix, track what changed.
- Disregard: write a specific rebuttal.
Present to the user and write to <REVIEW_DIR>/triage.md:

Round 1 Triage

Test Execution Summary

Per reviewer: what tests ran, results, or why they couldn't/didn't.

Changes Applied
- Fixes with file:line references
Suggestions Disregarded
- <Reviewer> — <description>: <rebuttal>
Wait for user review before continuing.
Ask whether to commit fixes. Committing lets Round 2 agents diff review fixes separately from the original change.

Step 4 — Round 2: Rebuttal review

Run cursor-agent-multi.py with --task review-round2, same output dir, agents, and include-dir.

Round-specific instructions to include in the prompt:

Git commands for the original diff (same as Round 1)
Git commands for the review-fix diff (if committed, provide SHA range)
File paths to Round 1 reviews (<REVIEW_DIR>/review-round1/<name>/output.md) and triage (<REVIEW_DIR>/triage.md)
"Read all files above. Assess: given the original reviews, fixes, and rebuttals — do you agree with the dismissals? Any remaining issues? For each rebuttal you disagree with, explain why."

Do NOT paste reviews or triage inline. After completion, read every output.md. Apply any convincing additional changes.

Final output

Present the final summary: