review

name	review
description	Collect critical feedback from all registered LLMs on an artifact (architecture doc, implementation, plan). Intellectual debate with push-back — no sycophancy. Reports findings and unresolved disagreements.
allowed-tools	Bash, Glob, Grep, Read, Write
disable-model-invocation	true

Collect critical, honest feedback from all LLMs on an artifact. Push back on weak arguments. Report both consensus findings and unresolved disagreements.

Phase 0: Load consult-llm skill

Load the consult-llm skill before proceeding — it defines the invocation contract (stdin heredoc, flags, output format, multi-turn). Do not call the CLI without loading it first.

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS

Check the arguments for flags:

Mode flags:

• --rounds N → number of critique rounds (default: 2, max: 3)
• --dry-run → skip the final synthesis, just show raw reviews
• --models <list> → comma-separated selectors/model IDs to use as reviewers (default: gemini,openai,anthropic,deepseek)

Strip all flags from arguments to get the review target — a file path, directory, or topic description.

Set variables:

• REVIEWERS: list of model selectors from --models flag, or ["gemini", "openai", "anthropic", "deepseek"] if omitted
• Build the -m flags by repeating -m <selector> for each reviewer

Available Reviewers

Discover which selectors and models are available in this environment:

!`consult-llm models`

Default reviewers (used when no --models flag is given): gemini, openai, anthropic, deepseek — all four selectors that have a configured backend.

Override with --models flag: --models gemini,openai to review with only two, or --models gemini,openai,anthropic for three. Any selector or exact model ID from the list above is accepted.

Critical Rule: No Sycophancy

This skill exists to find problems, not to validate. Instruct every LLM call with:

• Be critical. The goal is to find weaknesses, gaps, and risks — not to praise.
• Disagree openly. If something looks wrong, say so directly. Do not soften criticism to be polite.
• Push back. If another reviewer dismissed a concern too easily, challenge them.
• Unresolved disagreements are fine. Not everything needs consensus. Flag genuine disagreements clearly rather than papering over them.

Phase 1: Read the Target

1. Parse the arguments — determine what to review:

   • If it's a file path: read the file(s)
   • If it's a directory: explore and read key files
   • If it's a topic/description: gather relevant files from the codebase

2. Gather context — use Glob, Grep, Read to understand:

   • The artifact itself (full content)
   • Surrounding code/docs it relates to
   • Existing patterns and conventions

3. Prepare the review brief — a summary of:

   • What is being reviewed (the artifact and its purpose)
   • Relevant context from the codebase
   • Specific aspects to focus on (if the user mentioned any)

Phase 2: Independent Reviews

Have all four LLMs independently review the artifact in parallel using a single CLI call.

Review prompt:

You are a critical reviewer. Your job is to find problems, not to praise.

## What you are reviewing

[Review brief — artifact content and context]

## Your task

Provide a thorough, critical review:

1. **Problems found**: List concrete issues — bugs, logical errors, missing edge cases, architectural flaws, security concerns. Be specific with file paths and line numbers where applicable.
2. **Questionable decisions**: Decisions that might work but deserve scrutiny — are there better alternatives? What are the trade-offs not being considered?
3. **Missing considerations**: What's not addressed that should be? Gaps in error handling, testing, documentation, scalability, maintainability?
4. **Risks**: What could go wrong in production or during maintenance? What assumptions might not hold?
5. **What works well**: (Brief) What's genuinely solid and should be kept as-is?

Rules:
- Be direct and specific. "This could be improved" is useless. "The retry logic on line 45 silently swallows errors, which will make debugging impossible" is useful.
- Do NOT try to be balanced. If you find 10 problems and 1 good thing, report 10 problems and 1 good thing.
- Do NOT soften criticism. If something is bad, say it's bad and explain why.
- Prioritize your findings: critical issues first, minor nits last.

Invoke consult-llm with -m <selector> repeated for each reviewer in REVIEWERS, --task review, and -f <path> for each relevant file. Send the review prompt on stdin via quoted heredoc. All models are queried in parallel in a single call.

The response is in group format:

• Line 1: [thread_id:group_xxx]
• Each model section: ## Model: <id> header, then [model:<id>] [thread_id:<per-model-id>], then the response body

Extract thread IDs: Parse each model's thread_id from the per-model header lines. These are needed for Phase 3 since each model receives the other three's responses.

Present all reviews to the user.

Phase 3: Cross-Review and Push-Back

For each round (default 2, configurable with --rounds N, max 3):

Share a combined summary of all other reviewers' findings with each reviewer and ask them to challenge, validate, or push back. Use -t <thread_id> to continue each LLM's conversation.

Cross-review prompt (for each reviewer, include the other reviewers' findings):

The other reviewers provided these assessments:

[Combined summary of the other reviewers' latest responses, labeled by provider name]

Respond critically:

1. **Agree**: Which of their findings are valid? Don't just agree to be agreeable — only agree if you genuinely think they're right.
2. **Disagree**: Which findings are wrong, exaggerated, or missing context? Explain why. If they dismissed one of YOUR concerns, push back if you still think it's valid.
3. **New findings**: Did their reviews make you notice anything you missed?
4. **Priority adjustment**: Given all reviews, what are the TOP 3 most critical issues?

Do NOT be diplomatic. If they're wrong, say they're wrong and explain why. If you change your mind, say so explicitly — don't quietly drop a previous point.

Each model receives a different prompt (the other reviewers' responses embedded). Invoke consult-llm once with one --run flag per reviewer, continuing each model's thread:

consult-llm \
  --run "model=<selector>,thread=$THREAD,prompt-file=$PROMPT" \
  ...  # one --run per reviewer
  -f <path> ...

Write each model's cross-review prompt to a temp file with mktemp, using __CONSULT_LLM_END__ as the heredoc terminator and >| to overwrite.

Present all responses to the user after each round.

Phase 4: Findings Report

If --dry-run: Present the raw reviews without synthesis.

Analyze all rounds and produce a structured report:

1. Categorize findings

Go through every issue raised across all rounds and categorize:

• Consensus findings: Majority of reviewers (3+) agree this is a problem
• Partial consensus: Two reviewers agree, others disagree or are silent
• Unresolved disagreements: Reviewers actively disagree — present all sides fairly
• Dropped concerns: Issues raised then abandoned — note why

2. Write the report

## Review: [Artifact Name]

**Reviewed:** [What was reviewed — file paths or description]
**Reviewers:** Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepSeek
**Rounds:** [N]

### Critical Issues (Consensus)

Issues where 3+ reviewers agree, ordered by severity:

1. **[Issue title]**
   - **What:** [Specific description]
   - **Where:** [File:line or section]
   - **Why it matters:** [Impact]
   - **Suggested fix:** [If one emerged from discussion]
   - **Raised by:** [Which reviewers]

### Disputed Issues

Issues where reviewers disagree — all positions presented:

1. **[Issue title]**
   - **For:** [Reviewers and their argument]
   - **Against:** [Reviewers and their argument]
   - **Moderator's take:** [Your assessment of who has the stronger argument]

### Minor Findings

Lower-severity issues and suggestions:
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]

### What's Solid

Aspects reviewers consider well-done:
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]

### Unresolved Questions

Open questions that need human judgment:
- [Question 1]
- [Question 2]

3. Moderator's assessment

Add your own honest assessment as moderator:

• Which reviewer made the strongest arguments overall?
• Are there issues NO reviewer caught that you noticed?
• What's the single most important thing to address?

Save the report to history/review-<artifact-name>.md.

Critical Rules

• Independence first. Phase 2 reviews are fully independent — all models receive the same prompt via parallel -m flags in a single call. Do not show one reviewer's output to another until Phase 3.
• No sycophancy. Every prompt must instruct LLMs to be critical, disagree openly, and push back. This skill exists to find problems, not to validate.
• Bash timeout 600000 on every consult-llm call — LLM responses routinely exceed the 2-minute default.
• Unresolved disagreements are valid output. Do not force consensus. Flag genuine disagreements clearly rather than papering over them.
• Verify before adopting. Findings are claims, not facts. If a reviewer cites a specific file/line, confirm it exists and says what they claim before including it in the report.
• Phase discipline. Phase 1 is LLM-free (agent reads and prepares context). Phase 2 is independent LLM work. Phase 3 is adversarial cross-review. Phase 4 is agent synthesis.