ワンクリックで
multi-model-verification
Parallel code verification using multiple models with severity classification
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
メニュー
Parallel code verification using multiple models with severity classification
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
6-stage structured development cycle with stage-based tool restrictions
Multi-angle release quality verification using parallel expert review teams
Full Self Driving — autonomous release loop that processes all auto-dev-eligible GitHub issues until none remain, by repeatedly running /pipeline auto-dev then /homework.
Invoke and resume YAML-defined pipelines by name — /pipeline auto-dev runs the full release pipeline
Analyze release workflow findings and recommend follow-up actions — execute immediately or register as issues
Auto-detect project context and optimize harness — deactivate unused agents/skills, suggest missing experts, generate project profile
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | multi-model-verification |
| description | Parallel code verification using multiple models with severity classification |
| scope | core |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| user-invocable | false |
Parallel code verification using multiple AI models for comprehensive quality assurance. Each model focuses on a different aspect, and results are aggregated with severity classification.
Inspired by Pi Coding Agent Workflow Extension's multi-model verification pattern. Instead of a single reviewer, multiple models verify code simultaneously, each with specialized focus areas.
| Model | Role | Focus Areas |
|---|---|---|
frontier/high | Architecture Reviewer | Design patterns, separation of concerns, extensibility, security architecture |
frontier/medium | Code Quality Reviewer | Logic correctness, error handling, edge cases, performance patterns |
spark/low | Style & Convention Reviewer | Naming conventions, formatting, documentation, code organization |
| Severity | Description | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Bugs, security vulnerabilities, data loss risks | Must fix before merge |
| WARNING | Code smells, suboptimal patterns, missing error handling | Should fix, justify if skipped |
| INFO | Style suggestions, minor improvements, alternative approaches | Optional improvement |
OMCODEX_AGENT_TEAMS=1) for full parallel executionAgent(frontier/high) → Architecture & design reviewAgent(frontier/medium) → Code quality & correctness reviewAgent(spark/low) → Style & convention reviewWhen Agent Teams is available, create a verification team:
TeamCreate("verification-team")
├── architect-reviewer (frontier/high) → Architecture review
├── quality-reviewer (frontier/medium) → Code quality review
└── style-reviewer (spark/low) → Style review
Members communicate findings via SendMessage for cross-cutting concerns.
When Agent Teams is unavailable, spawn parallel agents:
[1] Agent(general-purpose):frontier/high → Architecture review
[2] Agent(general-purpose):frontier/medium → Code quality review
[3] Agent(general-purpose):spark/low → Style & convention review
## Multi-Model Verification Report
### Summary
- Files reviewed: {count}
- Findings: {critical} CRITICAL, {warning} WARNING, {info} INFO
- Reviewers: frontier/high (architecture), frontier/medium (quality), spark/low (style)
### CRITICAL
[frontier/high] {file}:{line} — {description}
[frontier/medium] {file}:{line} — {description}
### WARNING
[frontier/medium] {file}:{line} — {description}
[spark/low] {file}:{line} — {description}
### INFO
[spark/low] {file}:{line} — {description}
### Consensus
Issues flagged by 2+ reviewers:
- {file}:{line} — {description} (flagged by: frontier/high, frontier/medium)
dev-review skill as an enhanced verification modestructured-dev-cycle skill at the "Verify Implementation" stage| Parameter | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
models | [frontier/high, frontier/medium, spark/low] | Models to use for verification |
severity_filter | all | Minimum severity to report (critical, warning, all) |
consensus_threshold | 2 | Number of reviewers needed for consensus flag |
include_suggestions | true | Include INFO-level suggestions |
| Scenario | Recommended |
|---|---|
| Pre-merge review of critical code | Yes |
| Architecture changes | Yes |
| Security-sensitive code | Yes |
| Simple formatting changes | No (use single reviewer) |
| Rapid prototyping | No (overhead too high) |
Multi-model verification uses 3x the tokens of a single review. Reserve for: