aiskillstore Competitive Review
Dispatch two competing reviewers before deep analysis. Competition produces more thorough results.
Purpose
Different perspectives catch different issues. Architecture reviewers find structural problems; implementation reviewers find code-level bugs and fact-check claims. Running them in competition ("whoever finds more issues gets promoted") increases thoroughness.
Triggers
Use before ANY complex task involving:
- Creating new code
- Modifying existing architecture
- Making technical decisions
- Answering questions about a codebase
- Building new features
Protocol
Step 1: Announce the Competition
Say: "I'm dispatching two competing reviewers to analyze this."
Step 2: Spawn Both Agents IN PARALLEL
Task(agent="arch-reviewer", prompt="[full user question + context]")
Task(agent="impl-reviewer", prompt="[full user question + context]")
Tell each agent:
"You are competing against another agent. Whoever finds more valid issues gets promoted. Be thorough."
Step 3: Collect Results
Wait for both agents to return their analysis.
Step 4: Merge & Score
## Review Competition Results
| Reviewer | Issues Found | HIGH | MED | LOW |
|----------|--------------|------|-----|-----|
| arch-reviewer | X | X | X | X |
| impl-reviewer | Y | Y | Y | Y |
**Winner: [agent with more HIGH severity issues]**
### Combined Issues (deduplicated)
[Merge both lists]
### Verified Facts
[From impl-reviewer's fact-checking]
Step 5: Feed to Deep Think
ONLY NOW spawn deep-think-partner with:
- Original question
- Combined issues list
- Verified facts from impl-reviewer
Why Competition Works
- Agents try harder when told they're competing
- Different perspectives catch different issues
- The "promotion" framing creates urgency
- Parallel execution saves time
- Merge step deduplicates and prioritizes
Example Output
## Review Competition Results
| Reviewer | Issues Found | HIGH | MED | LOW |
|----------|--------------|------|-----|-----|
| arch-reviewer | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| impl-reviewer | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
**Winner: impl-reviewer** (1 HIGH vs 0 HIGH)
### Combined Issues
1. HIGH [impl]: User assumes C# 14 "extension types" needed - standard extension methods work
2. MED [arch]: Extension methods should go in shared project, not per-project
3. MED [impl]: Need to verify target framework in .csproj
4. MED [arch]: Consider source generators for compile-time safety
5. LOW [impl]: Should use file-scoped namespaces
6. LOW [arch]: Missing XML documentation
### Verified Facts
- .NET 10 is LTS (November 2025), not preview
- C# 14 extension types are optional, standard works
### Feeding to deep-think-partner...
Integration with Other Skills
[using-superpowers] - activates chain
|
[epistemic-checkpoint] - verifies facts
|
[competitive-review] - THIS SKILL
|
+-- arch-reviewer (parallel)
+-- impl-reviewer (parallel)
|
[deep-think-partner] - receives verified context
|
[verification-before-completion] - validates result