| name | cross-eval |
| description | /cs:cross-eval <memo> — Multi-model consensus on a board memo or strategy brief. Claude + Codex + Gemini cross-review with graceful degradation. Use when a high-stakes memo needs an independent sanity check before the boardroom — e.g. a bet-the-company pivot or fundraise terms. |
/cs:cross-eval — Multi-Model Consensus
Command: /cs:cross-eval <memo-or-brief>
Runs the same memo through multiple model providers and reconciles divergences. Use for high-stakes, irreversible decisions where single-model bias is too costly: M&A, major fundraises, layoffs, strategic pivots, regulatory commitments.
Adapted from gstack's /codex cross-review pattern, generalized to business memos instead of code PRs.
When to Run
- Before signing a term sheet
- Before announcing a layoff
- Before committing to a regulated market
- Before any decision where reversing costs > 6 months of company time
- When the boardroom vote was split or had a CRITICAL dissent
Models Used (graceful degradation)
The command tries to invoke each available model in order:
- Claude (primary, always available) — the boardroom's native voice
- Codex / OpenAI (if
OPENAI_API_KEY or codex CLI available)
- Gemini (if
GEMINI_API_KEY or gemini CLI available)
If only Claude is available, the command runs Claude-only with adversarial mode — same model, different prompt seeds — and clearly labels the output as single-model.
Workflow
- Read the memo / brief
- Probe environment for available model CLIs / API keys
- For each available model:
- Send the memo with this prompt prefix:
"You are an independent C-suite reviewer. The following is a board memo from another company's boardroom. Identify the top 3 concerns, the top 3 supports, and your vote (APPROVE / REJECT / DEFER). Do not deferentially agree — assume the memo's reasoning is flawed until proven otherwise."
- Collect three independent reviews
- Reconcile: where do they agree? Where do they diverge?
- Surface the divergences as questions for the founder
Output Format
Saved to ~/.claude/cross-eval/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md:
# Cross-Eval: <memo title>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Memo reviewed:** <link>
**Models invoked:** Claude / Codex / Gemini (or noted fallbacks)
## Vote Tally
| Model | Vote | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Claude | APPROVE | High |
| Codex | DEFER | Med |
| Gemini | APPROVE | Low |
## Consensus Concerns (≥2 models flagged)
1. <concern> — flagged by Claude + Codex
2. <concern> — flagged by all 3
## Divergent Concerns (1 model flagged)
- <Codex only:> <concern> — worth a second look
- <Gemini only:> <concern> — likely noise, but check
## Consensus Supports (≥2 models endorsed)
1. <support>
2. <support>
## Recommendation
- 🟢 GO if 2+ models APPROVE and no CRITICAL concerns from any model
- 🟡 PAUSE if any model is DEFER or any concern is CRITICAL
- 🔴 STOP if 2+ models REJECT
## Open Questions for Founder
1. < >
Why This Matters
Single-model recommendations have systematic biases. Claude trends helpful and may under-weight risk. Codex (OpenAI) trends more cautious on emerging-market and regulatory topics. Gemini trends more cautious on technical scale claims. Disagreement is signal, not noise.
This is the safety net before irreversibility — not a replacement for outside counsel or a real board.
Graceful Degradation
If only Claude is available:
**Models available:** Claude only
**Mode:** ADVERSARIAL — running 3 independent Claude passes with different system prompts:
1. Standard reviewer
2. Devil's advocate (must find 3 critical concerns)
3. Steelman (must find 3 strongest reasons to approve)
This is weaker than true multi-model. Treat the result as suggestive, not conclusive.
Routing
/cs:decide — if consensus is GO/cs:freeze — if consensus is PAUSE/cs:boardroom (re-run) — if consensus is STOP
Related
Version: 1.0.0
