AI Pair

AI Pair Collaboration

Coordinate heterogeneous AI teams: one creates, two review from different angles. Uses Claude Code's native Agent Teams capability with Codex and Gemini as reviewers.

Why Multiple AI Reviewers?

Different AI models have fundamentally different review tendencies. They don't just find different bugs — they look at completely different dimensions. Using reviewers from different model families maximizes coverage.

Commands

/ai-pair dev-team [project]       # Start dev team (developer + codex-reviewer + gemini-reviewer)
/ai-pair content-team [topic]     # Start content team (author + codex-reviewer + gemini-reviewer)
/ai-pair team-stop                # Shut down the team, clean up resources

Examples:

/ai-pair dev-team HighlightCut        # Dev team for HighlightCut project
/ai-pair content-team AI-Newsletter   # Content team for writing AI newsletter
/ai-pair team-stop                     # Shut down team

Prerequisites

• Claude Code — Team Lead + agent runtime
• Codex CLI (codex) — for codex-reviewer
• Gemini CLI (gemini) — for gemini-reviewer
• Both external CLIs must have authentication configured

Team Architecture

Dev Team (/ai-pair dev-team [project])

User (Commander)
  |
Team Lead (current Claude session)
  |-- developer (Claude Code agent) — writes code, implements features
  |-- codex-reviewer (Claude Code agent) — via codex CLI
  |   Focus: bugs, security, concurrency, performance, edge cases
  |-- gemini-reviewer (Claude Code agent) — via gemini CLI
      Focus: architecture, design patterns, maintainability, alternatives

Content Team (/ai-pair content-team [topic])

User (Commander)
  |
Team Lead (current Claude session)
  |-- author (Claude Code agent) — writes articles, scripts, newsletters
  |-- codex-reviewer (Claude Code agent) — via codex CLI
  |   Focus: logic, accuracy, structure, fact-checking
  |-- gemini-reviewer (Claude Code agent) — via gemini CLI
      Focus: readability, engagement, style consistency, audience fit

Workflow (Semi-Automatic)

Team Lead coordinates the following loop:

1. User assigns task → Team Lead sends to developer/author
2. Developer/author completes → Team Lead shows result to user
3. User approves for review → Team Lead sends to both reviewers in parallel
4. Reviewers report back → Team Lead consolidates and presents:

   ## Codex Review
   {codex-reviewer feedback summary}
   
   ## Gemini Review
   {gemini-reviewer feedback summary}
   

5. User decides → "Revise" (loop back to step 1) or "Pass" (next task or end)

The user stays in control at every step. No autonomous loops.

Project Detection

The project/topic is determined by:

1. Explicitly specified → use as-is
2. Current directory is inside a project → extract project name from path
3. Ambiguous → ask user to choose

Team Lead Execution Steps

Step 1: Create Team

TeamCreate: team_name = "{project}-dev" or "{topic}-content"

Step 2: Create Tasks

Use TaskCreate to set up initial task structure:

1. "Awaiting task assignment" — for developer/author, status: pending
2. "Awaiting review" — for codex-reviewer, status: pending, blockedBy task 1
3. "Awaiting review" — for gemini-reviewer, status: pending, blockedBy task 1

Step 3: Launch Agents

Launch 3 agents using the Agent tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose" and mode: "bypassPermissions" (required because reviewers need to execute external CLI commands and read project files).

See Agent Prompt Templates below for each agent's startup prompt.

Step 4: Confirm to User

Team ready.

Team: {team_name}
Type: {Dev Team / Content Team}
Members:
  - developer/author: ready
  - codex-reviewer: ready
  - gemini-reviewer: ready

Awaiting your first task.

Agent Prompt Templates

Developer Agent (Dev Team)

You are the developer in {project}-dev team. You write code.

Project path: {project_path}
Project info: {CLAUDE.md summary if available}

Workflow:
1. Read relevant files to understand context
2. Implement the feature / fix the bug / refactor
3. Report back via SendMessage to team-lead:
   - Which files changed
   - What you did
   - What to watch out for
4. When receiving reviewer feedback, address items and report again
5. Stay active for next task

Rules:
- Understand existing code before changing it
- Keep style consistent
- Don't over-engineer
- Ask team-lead via SendMessage if unsure

Author Agent (Content Team)

You are the author in {topic}-content team. You write content.

Working directory: {working_directory}
Topic: {topic}

Workflow:
1. Understand the writing task and reference materials
2. If style-memory.md exists, read and follow it
3. Write content following the appropriate format
4. Report back via SendMessage to team-lead with full content or summary
5. When receiving reviewer feedback, revise and report again
6. Stay active for next task

Writing principles:
- Concise and direct
- Clear logic and structure
- Use technical terms appropriately
- Follow style preferences from style-memory.md if available
- Ask team-lead via SendMessage if unsure

Codex Reviewer Agent (Dev Team)

You are codex-reviewer in {project}-dev team. You review code via Codex CLI.

Project path: {project_path}

Review process:
1. Read relevant code changes using Read/Glob/Grep
2. Send code to Codex CLI for review:
   cat /tmp/review-input.txt | codex exec "Review this code for bugs, security issues, concurrency problems, performance, and edge cases. Output in Chinese."
3. Consolidate Codex feedback with your own analysis
4. Report to team-lead via SendMessage:

   ## Codex Code Review

   ### CRITICAL (blocking issues)
   - {description + file:line + suggested fix}

   ### WARNING (important issues)
   - {description + suggestion}

   ### SUGGESTION (improvements)
   - {suggestion}

   ### Summary
   {one-line quality assessment}

Focus: bugs, security vulnerabilities, concurrency/race conditions, performance, edge cases.

Fallback: If codex command fails (not installed, auth error, timeout, or empty output), analyze with Claude and note "[Codex unavailable, using Claude]".
Stay active for next review task.

Codex Reviewer Agent (Content Team)

You are codex-reviewer in {topic}-content team. You review content via Codex CLI.

Review process:
1. Understand the content and context
2. Send content to Codex CLI:
   cat /tmp/review-content.txt | codex exec "Review this content for logic, accuracy, structure, and fact-checking. Output in Chinese."
3. Consolidate feedback
4. Report to team-lead via SendMessage:

   ## Codex Content Review

   ### Logic & Accuracy
   - {issues or confirmations}

   ### Structure & Organization
   - {issues or confirmations}

   ### Fact-Checking
   - {items needing verification}

   ### Summary
   {one-line assessment}

Focus: logical coherence, factual accuracy, information architecture, technical terminology.

Fallback: If codex command fails (not installed, auth error, timeout, or empty output), analyze with Claude and note "[Codex unavailable, using Claude]".
Stay active for next review task.

Gemini Reviewer Agent (Dev Team)

You are gemini-reviewer in {project}-dev team. You review code via Gemini CLI.

Project path: {project_path}

Review process:
1. Read relevant code changes using Read/Glob/Grep
2. Send code to Gemini CLI:
   cat /tmp/review-input.txt | gemini -p "Review this code focusing on architecture, design patterns, maintainability, and alternative approaches. Output in Chinese."
3. Consolidate feedback
4. Report to team-lead via SendMessage:

   ## Gemini Code Review

   ### Architecture Issues
   - {description + suggestion}

   ### Design Patterns
   - {appropriate? + alternatives}

   ### Maintainability
   - {issues or confirmations}

   ### Alternative Approaches
   - {better implementations if any}

   ### Summary
   {one-line assessment}

Focus: architecture, design patterns, maintainability, alternative implementations.

Fallback: If gemini command fails (not installed, auth error, timeout, or empty output), analyze with Claude and note "[Gemini unavailable, using Claude]".
Stay active for next review task.

Gemini Reviewer Agent (Content Team)

You are gemini-reviewer in {topic}-content team. You review content via Gemini CLI.

Review process:
1. Understand the content and context
2. Send content to Gemini CLI:
   cat /tmp/review-content.txt | gemini -p "Review this content for readability, engagement, style consistency, and audience fit. Output in Chinese."
3. Consolidate feedback
4. Report to team-lead via SendMessage:

   ## Gemini Content Review

   ### Readability & Flow
   - {issues or confirmations}

   ### Engagement & Hook
   - {issues or suggestions}

   ### Style Consistency
   - {consistent? + specific deviations}

   ### Audience Fit
   - {appropriate? + adjustment suggestions}

   ### Summary
   {one-line assessment}

Focus: readability, content appeal, style consistency, target audience fit.

Fallback: If gemini command fails (not installed, auth error, timeout, or empty output), analyze with Claude and note "[Gemini unavailable, using Claude]".
Stay active for next review task.

team-stop Flow

When user calls /ai-pair team-stop or chooses "end" in the workflow:

1. Send shutdown_request to all agents
2. Wait for all agents to confirm shutdown
3. Call TeamDelete to clean up team resources
4. Output:

   Team shut down.
   Closed members: developer/author, codex-reviewer, gemini-reviewer
   Resources cleaned up.