qa-review-triple-model

name	qa_review_triple-model
description	Legacy Claude-only provider-mixed review workflow using Opus, Gemini, Codex, and Kimi K2.5. Each reviewer writes findings to separate markdown files, then orchestrator synthesizes. Use only when the user explicitly requests triple review, quad review, multi-model review, Gemini, or Kimi. Do not trigger for generic QAQC, quality assurance, security review, bug investigation, or critical review requests. Triggers: triple review, quad review, four model review, multi-model analysis, provider-mixed review, kimi review, gemini review, togetherai review
shared_corpus	false
harness_scope	claude_only

Multi-Model Code Review (4 Models)

Legacy Claude-only orchestration skill. This workflow coordinates external/provider-specific reviewers from Claude. It is excluded from the shared multi-harness corpus and is not part of the standard production QAQC path.

Overview

When the user explicitly requests this legacy provider-mixed workflow, invoke this skill. Launch four independent AI subagents (Opus, Gemini, Codex, and Kimi K2.5) to perform parallel code review. Each agent writes findings to markdown files in a workspace directory, then the orchestrator synthesizes a final report with consensus findings.

Usage

/triple_model_code_review [target] [focus_area]

Examples:

• /triple_model_code_review examples/720_precipitation_methods_comprehensive.ipynb "plotting logic"
• /triple_model_code_review ras_commander/hdf/HdfResultsPlan.py "return type consistency"
• /triple_model_code_review ras_commander/precip/ "API contract validation"
• /triple_model_code_review src/auth/login.py "security vulnerabilities"

Workflow

1. Create Workspace: workspace/{task}QAQC/{opus,gemini,codex,kimi,final}-analysis/

2. Launch 4 Parallel Subagents:

   • Opus (general-purpose, model=opus): Deep reasoning, architecture analysis
   • Gemini (code-oracle-gemini): Large context, multi-file pattern analysis
   • Codex (code-oracle-codex): Code archaeology, API contract analysis
   • Kimi K2.5 (code-oracle-kimi): Edge case detection, test generation focus, QA verification

3. Handle Model Failures (Graceful Degradation):

   • If a model fails or is unavailable, note it and continue
   • Synthesis works with 1-4 successful models
   • Report which models succeeded/failed to user

4. Each Agent:

   • Reads target files independently
   • Writes qaqc-report.md to their subfolder
   • Returns file path only (no large text in response)
   • If agent fails, creates empty report with error note

5. Orchestrator Synthesizes:

   • Reads all available reports (1-4)
   • Identifies consensus findings from successful models
   • Creates FINAL_QAQC_REPORT.md with agreement matrix
   • Highlights unique insights from each successful model
   • Notes which models were unavailable

Subagent Prompts

Opus Subagent

You are conducting an independent QA/QC analysis of [TARGET].

## Critical Issue
[DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]

## Your Task
1. Read and analyze the target files
2. Identify root cause of the issue
3. Document specific line numbers and code evidence
4. Provide recommended fixes

## Output
Write comprehensive analysis to: workspace/[TASK]QAQC/opus-analysis/qaqc-report.md

Return ONLY the file path when complete.

Gemini Subagent

You are conducting an independent QA/QC analysis using large context capabilities.

## Critical Issue
[DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]

## Your Task
1. Read ALL relevant files in the target area
2. Trace data flow from source to symptom
3. Document column/type confusion if applicable
4. Provide method-by-method analysis

## Output
Write analysis to: workspace/[TASK]QAQC/gemini-analysis/qaqc-report.md

Return ONLY the file path when complete.

Codex Subagent

You are conducting deep code analysis for QA/QC.

## Critical Issue
[DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]

## Your Task
1. Deep analysis of target code
2. Code archaeology - how was bug introduced
3. API contract analysis - promises vs delivery
4. Test cases that would catch this bug

## Output
Write analysis to: workspace/[TASK]QAQC/codex-analysis/qaqc-report.md

Return ONLY the file path when complete.

Kimi K2.5 Subagent (NEW)

You are conducting QA/QC analysis with focus on edge cases, testing gaps, and quality verification.

## Critical Issue
[DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]

## Your Task
1. Identify edge cases and boundary conditions not handled
2. Find gaps in error handling and validation
3. Analyze test coverage - what tests are missing?
4. Check for race conditions and concurrency issues
5. Verify API contracts and type safety
6. Suggest specific test cases that would catch bugs

## Unique Focus Areas
- Edge case detection (null, undefined, empty inputs, extreme values)
- Test coverage gaps
- Error handling completeness
- Security vulnerabilities
- Performance bottlenecks

## Output
Write analysis to: workspace/[TASK]QAQC/kimi-analysis/qaqc-report.md

Return ONLY the file path when complete.

Output Structure

workspace/{task}QAQC/
├── opus-analysis/
│   └── qaqc-report.md          # Deep reasoning analysis
├── gemini-analysis/
│   └── qaqc-report.md          # Large context analysis
├── codex-analysis/
│   └── qaqc-report.md          # Code archaeology analysis
├── kimi-analysis/              # NEW
│   └── qaqc-report.md          # Edge case & testing analysis
└── final-synthesis/
    └── FINAL_QAQC_REPORT.md    # Consensus findings

Report Template

Individual Reports

# QA/QC Analysis Report: [Target]

**Analyst**: [Model Name]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Target**: [file/folder]
**Status**: [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

## 1. Summary of Findings
## 2. Root Cause Analysis
## 3. Code Evidence (with line numbers)
## 4. Impact Assessment
## 5. Recommended Fixes
## 6. Verification Steps
## 7. Test Cases Needed (Kimi specific)

Final Synthesis

# Final QA/QC Synthesis Report

## Executive Summary
## Consensus Bug List
## Agreement Matrix (which reviewers found what)
  - Opus: [findings]
  - Gemini: [findings]
  - Codex: [findings]
  - Kimi: [findings]  # Edge cases & testing gaps
## Unique Insights by Model
  - Opus: [architectural issues]
  - Gemini: [multi-file patterns]
  - Codex: [API contract violations]
  - Kimi: [edge cases, missing tests, security gaps]
## Required Fixes (with exact code changes)
## Test Coverage Recommendations
## Verification Criteria

Model Strengths Matrix

Model	Best For	Unique Strengths
Opus	Architecture, logic flow	Deep reasoning, system design
Gemini	Large codebases	1M+ token context, multi-file analysis
Codex	Implementation details	Code archaeology, API contracts
Kimi K2.5	Edge cases, testing	Boundary conditions, test gaps, security

Best Practices

1. Be Specific: Give clear problem description to all four agents
2. Parallel Launch: Launch all four agents in single message for speed
3. File-Based Communication: Agents write files, return paths only
4. Consensus Focus: Weight findings by agreement across reviewers
5. Preserve Evidence: Keep all reports in workspace for audit trail
6. Consider Kimi's Edge Cases: Kimi often finds issues others miss - don't ignore unique findings
7. Test Generation: Use Kimi's test recommendations to improve coverage

Error Handling, Examples, and Troubleshooting

For graceful degradation protocols, example sessions, model failure troubleshooting, and partial results handling, see references/error-handling-and-examples.md.

Integration with Other Skills

Use these for follow-up after the multi-model review:

• dev_invoke_kimi-cli -- Follow up with Kimi-specific testing
• dev_invoke_gemini-cli -- Deep dive on Gemini findings
• dev_invoke_codex-cli -- Implement fixes identified
• using-git-worktrees -- Create isolated workspace for fixes

Cross-References

Skills (related workflows):

• dev_invoke_codex-cli -- Codex CLI for one of the review models
• dev_invoke_gemini-cli -- Gemini CLI for one of the review models
• dev_invoke_kimi-cli -- Kimi CLI for one of the review models

Agents (delegate when needed):

• code-oracle-codex -- Codex oracle agent
• code-oracle-gemini -- Gemini oracle agent