tier-review
Use after implementation to run tier-classified review agents and produce a consolidated verdict.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Use after implementation to run tier-classified review agents and produce a consolidated verdict.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when ingesting canonical PARA-ZK sources into the LLM-Wiki — per-import, delta, uncited, or targeted re-ingest.
Use when reorganizing the existing PARA-ZK LLM-Wiki domain topology.
Use when asked to import, translate, research, or compile something into the vault as a PARA-ZK resource note (file, URL, web, or synthesis).
Use when a query or conversation against the LLM-Wiki produces a durable synthesis worth keeping — a multi-source comparison/connection, or a standard concept the wiki lacks. Proposes filing it back as a new or updated wiki page and writes ONLY on the user's confirmation. Skip one-off lookups and navigation.
Use only when the user explicitly asks to lint or health-check the LLM-Wiki. Never run it as part of ingest or normal wiki work.
Install or refresh PARA-ZK Codex custom agents from the plugin's bundled Claude-style agent definitions. Use when a Codex user wants PARA-ZK workflows such as wiki-ingest to spawn named agents like wiki-weaver, or after installing/upgrading the PARA-ZK plugin in Codex.
| name | tier-review |
| description | Use after implementation to run tier-classified review agents and produce a consolidated verdict. |
| argument-hint | [--gated] [scope description] |
Run project review agents by tier taxonomy, consolidate findings, issue a verdict.
<Review_Protocol> You are the review gate executor. Discover which project agents exist, match them to the review scope, spawn by tier, and consolidate into a single verdict. All paths below are relative to the user's project root (working directory), not the plugin.
## Phase 1 — Discover Agents
1. Read the project's `.claude/rules/agents.md` for the Quick Reference table (agent, tier, purpose)
and the Consultation Matrix (task category → agent mapping)
2. If agents.md not found, read `.claude/agents/*.md` — look for tier in description
or Situation table. If tier is unclear, treat safety-related agents as tier 1,
domain-specific as tier 2, quality reviewers as tier 3.
3. If no agents found at all → report "no review agents configured" and exit.
## Phase 2 — Plan
1. Determine review scope from conversation context:
- Explicit argument → use it
- Recent implementation in conversation → those files
- Neither → fall back to git diff (staged + unstaged)
2. For each agent, check against the scope:
- Consultation Matrix: is this task category → agent mapping MANDATORY?
- Agent's Situation/Priority table: does the scope match?
3. Build an invocation table — for each agent: INVOKE (with scope + focus) or SKIP (with reason)
- If all agents are SKIP → report "no agents relevant to this scope" and exit.
4. Report the table before executing.
## Phase 3 — Execute
Spawn only agents marked INVOKE in the table.
For each agent, pass: "Review [scope files] focusing on [focus from plan]."
**Default**: spawn ALL INVOKE agents in parallel, wait for all.
**With `--gated`** (cost-saving short-circuit — use when API budget is tight):
1. Tier 1 (safety) — spawn in parallel, wait for all to complete
- If ANY returns BLOCKING findings → output REJECT verdict, STOP here
2. Tier 2 (domain) + tier 3 (quality) — spawn in parallel, wait for all to complete
## Phase 4 — Consolidate
Apply merge rules to all agent results:
1. **Verdict mapping**: agent PASS → no BLOCKING; agent NEEDS WORK → STRONG findings
2. **Dedup**: same file:line from multiple agents → single entry, list all agents
3. **Severity**: agents disagree → use higher severity
4. **Convergent signals**: same file flagged by multiple agents → elevate priority
5. **Root cause**: tier 1 finding that explains tier 3 symptom → connect and elevate
Issue final verdict:
| Condition | Verdict |
|-----------|---------|
| Any BLOCKING finding | REJECT |
| Multiple unresolved STRONG findings | NEEDS WORK |
| No BLOCKING, 1-2 STRONG items remaining | APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS |
| No BLOCKING, no unresolved STRONG | APPROVED |
| No BLOCKING, no STRONG, all agents report high quality | EXCEPTIONAL |
## Review: [scope]
| Tier | Agent | Status | Verdict | Key Findings |
|------|-------|--------|---------|--------------|
| {1/2/3} | {agent} | INVOKED/SKIPPED | PASS/FAIL/- | {summary or skip reason} |
### Strengths
- {Positive observations from agents with file:line evidence}
### Consolidated Findings
| # | Severity | Agent(s) | Location | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|----------|----------|----------|---------|------------|
| 1 | BLOCKING/STRONG/MINOR | {sources} | file:line | {issue} | {fix} |
### Verdict: [EXCEPTIONAL / APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS / NEEDS WORK / REJECT]
{justification}
</Output_Format> </Review_Protocol>