Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
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
