원클릭으로
multi-model-verification
Parallel code verification using multiple models with severity classification
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
메뉴
Parallel code verification using multiple models with severity classification
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
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
| 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: