Skip to content
Skillpedia
Tasks & projects41k · #4794

multi-reviewer-patterns

Enables your agent to coordinate parallel code reviews, deduplicating findings and consolidating reports.

What it does

This tool helps organize complex code reviews, ensuring different aspects (like security and performance) are checked by multiple people. It also helps consolidate similar issue reports and consistently rate the severity of problems.

When to use it

  • ✓When organizing a code review with multiple reviewers.
  • ✓When deciding which code aspects (security, performance, etc.) should be reviewed.
  • ✓When consolidating issue reports from different reviewers to avoid duplicates.

Example of what to ask your AI

“I need to organize a code review for a new login feature. What aspects should I prioritize and how should I rate the issues found?”

Want more? Open the sections below.

How to use

The easiest way: copy the message below and paste it into Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor or any AI. It reads the skill and follows the instructions.

Skill link

https://github.com/wshobson/agents/blob/main/plugins/agent-teams/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.md

Ready-to-paste message

Use this skill to help me: https://github.com/wshobson/agents/blob/main/plugins/agent-teams/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.md Read the SKILL.md file at that link and follow its instructions for my task.
How it works

The tool defines different review focus areas (dimensions) and suggests combinations for different types of changes. It also sets rules for grouping identical issues and for defining the severity of each problem found.

Installation

Easiest way: copy the skill link and paste it into Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor asking it to follow the instructions.

In the terminal (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor), in your project folder:

npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill multi-reviewer-patterns

Or download just the file:

curl -L https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wshobson/agents/main/plugins/agent-teams/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.md -o SKILL.md
Technical content (original SKILL.md)

Original text by the author, straight from GitHub.

Multi-Reviewer Patterns

Patterns for coordinating parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions, deduplicating findings, calibrating severity, and producing consolidated reports.

When to Use This Skill

  • Organizing a multi-dimensional code review
  • Deciding which review dimensions to assign
  • Deduplicating findings from multiple reviewers
  • Calibrating severity ratings consistently
  • Producing a consolidated review report

Review Dimension Allocation

Available Dimensions

Dimension Focus When to Include
Security Vulnerabilities, auth, input validation Always for code handling user input or auth
Performance Query efficiency, memory, caching When changing data access or hot paths
Architecture SOLID, coupling, patterns For structural changes or new modules
Testing Coverage, quality, edge cases When adding new functionality
Accessibility WCAG, ARIA, keyboard nav For UI/frontend changes

Recommended Combinations

Scenario Dimensions
API endpoint changes Security, Performance, Architecture
Frontend component Architecture, Testing, Accessibility
Database migration Performance, Architecture
Authentication changes Security, Testing
Full feature review Security, Performance, Architecture, Testing

Finding Deduplication

When multiple reviewers report issues at the same location:

Merge Rules

  1. Same file:line, same issue — Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers
  2. Same file:line, different issues — Keep as separate findings
  3. Same issue, different locations — Keep separate but cross-reference
  4. Conflicting severity — Use the higher severity rating
  5. Conflicting recommendations — Include both with reviewer attribution

Deduplication Process

For each finding in all reviewer reports:
  1. Check if another finding references the same file:line
  2. If yes, check if they describe the same issue
  3. If same issue: merge, keeping the more detailed description
  4. If different issue: keep both, tag as "co-located"
  5. Use highest severity among merged findings

Severity Calibration

Severity Criteria

Severity Impact Likelihood Examples
Critical Data loss, security breach, complete failure Certain or very likely SQL injection, auth bypass, data corruption
High Significant functionality impact, degradation Likely Memory leak, missing validation, broken flow
Medium Partial impact, workaround exists Possible N+1 query, missing edge case, unclear error
Low Minimal impact, cosmetic Unlikely Style issue, minor optimization, naming

Calibration Rules

  • Security vulnerabilities exploitable by external users: always Critical or High
  • Performance issues in hot paths: at least Medium
  • Missing tests for critical paths: at least Medium
  • Accessibility violations for core functionality: at least Medium
  • Code style issues with no functional impact: Low

Consolidated Report Template

## Code Review Report

**Target**: {files/PR/directory}
**Reviewers**: {dimension-1}, {dimension-2}, {dimension-3}
**Date**: {date}
**Files Reviewed**: {count}

### Critical Findings ({count})

#### [CR-001] {Title}

**Location**: `{file}:{line}`
**Dimension**: {Security/Performance/etc.}
**Description**: {what was found}
**Impact**: {what could happen}
**Fix**: {recommended remediation}

### High Findings ({count})

...

### Medium Findings ({count})

...

### Low Findings ({count})

...

### Summary

| Dimension    | Critical | High  | Medium | Low   | Total  |

…
FAQ

What are review 'dimensions'?

These are the different aspects that can be checked in the code, such as security, performance, architecture, testing, and accessibility.

How does the tool handle duplicate issues?

If multiple reviewers find the same issue in the same location, it's merged into a single item. If the issues are different but in the same location, they are listed separately. If the severity differs, the higher one is used.

How is issue severity determined?

Severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low) is defined based on potential impact (what could happen) and likelihood of occurrence. For example, a security breach is Critical, while a style issue is Low.

Details

Original description by the author

Coordinate parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions with finding deduplication, severity calibration, and consolidated reporting. Use this skill when organizing multi-reviewer code reviews, calibrating finding severity, or consolidating review results.

repo: wshobson/agents

Popularity

GitHub stars
41k
Ranking position
#4794
License
MIT
Updated
10/15/2026

Is this skill useful?

0

Sign in to vote.

Comments

  • …

More skills from this repository

Similar skills