# Multi Brain > Multi-LLM auto-router. Your main assistant orchestrates and routes a sub-task to a different model ONLY when that model fits the job better; the user talks to one assistant the whole time. The roster is yours to fill in. Fires automatically when a routing rule matches. NO-SELF-REVIEW LAW: when the user asks you to "check / review / verify / sanity-check / second-opinion" ANY work YOU just produced, route the review to a model from a DIFFERENT lineage if one is on the roster. Triggers: "check your work" · "review what you just did" · "is this right?" · "second opinion" · "sanity check" · "double-check" · "make sure this works". - Skill: `gerardordz96/multi-brain` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add gerardordz96/multi-brain` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/gerardordz96/multi-brain/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: GerardoRdz96 (https://skillmd.com/u/gerardordz96) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/gerardordz96/multi-brain --- # Multi-Brain Auto-Router Many brains, one terminal. The orchestrator drives and stays in front of the user; it hands a sub-task to whichever brain is genuinely better for it, then integrates the result. Routing should be invisible and **rare** — most turns stay with the main model. **Why different lineages matter:** two models from the same company share training, so they share blind spots. Cross-architecture diversity (e.g. Anthropic + OpenAI + Google + a local open-weights model) is what actually catches errors. **THE NO-SELF-REVIEW LAW (read this first).** When the user asks you to "check / review / verify / sanity-check / second-opinion" ANY work YOU just produced — code, writing, plan, anything — route the review to a model from a DIFFERENT lineage if one is on the roster. A model reviewing its own output has the same blind spots that produced the bug. If no second lineage is installed, say so, then re-derive the check from scratch instead of rubber-stamping. ## Your roster — FILL THIS IN Edit this table for *your* setup by hand: delete the rows for brains you don't have, add a row for each brain you do. Examples are placeholders. | Brain | Lineage | Best at (role) | How to call | Cost | |---|---|---|---|---| | **(main)** — e.g. Claude | e.g. Anthropic | orchestrator, builder, driver | — | plan | | *example:* Codex | OpenAI/GPT | code review, adversarial critic, rescue when stuck | `codex exec ""` | plan | | *example:* Gemini | Google | multimodal (video/audio/PDF), huge-context repo scans | `gemini -p "" @file` | free tier | | *example:* local model | open-weights (Ollama) | private/offline work, free bulk tasks | `ollama run ""` | free | > No second CLI installed yet? That's fine — the skill stays mostly asleep. The No-Self-Review Law still applies in its fallback form (re-derive, don't rubber-stamp). When you install a second brain, add the row and the routes light up. ## Routing table — fire when: - **[MUST]** review/check/verify work the main model just produced → different-lineage review (the Law above) - "tear apart / stress test / poke holes" → adversarial review on a different lineage - "I'm stuck / hand it off" OR the main model failed the same operation 2+ times in a row → rescue route to another brain (send full context: failing output, what was tried) - video / audio / huge PDF, and a multimodal brain is on the roster → multimodal route - "scan the whole repo / find every place X", and a huge-context brain is on the roster → whole-repo route - "ask all the models / consensus" → consensus panel, capped at **3 lineages**, each returning the same structured template (recommendation / risks / assumptions / confidence); the orchestrator adjudicates by evidence, not by averaging ## Do NOT fire for (stay with the main model): - "Explain / what is / how does" → direct answer - "Write / draft / build / edit / plan" → direct (but if the user then says "now check your work" — the Law applies) - Reviewing content the USER wrote (their notes, their draft) → direct - Conversation, status, file ops, normal Q&A → direct - "What did we decide?" → the decisions log and wiki, not another model ## Announcement protocol Whenever you route somewhere the user did NOT explicitly request — announce in one line BEFORE running, so they can stop you with one word: ``` [multi-brain] routing review to — different lineage, no self-review [multi-brain] handing to rescue — failed the same step 2x ``` ## Failure-detection rule (deterministic, not a vibe) 2× same test failure, 2× same shell error, or 2× same edit with no progress → MUST route a rescue (if a second brain exists) or stop and tell the user. Reset the counter only when the step passes, the goal changes, or the user says "keep trying." This 2× counter is the same kind of loop brake taught in `references/agent-loops.md` — read it before wiring any run-until-done loop. ## Cost discipline Default to the main model. Route only when the specialist's strength is the actual bottleneck. One strong model usually matches an ensemble at a fraction of the cost — the ensemble's real win is catching errors on high-stakes work, not speed. Under-firing is fine; over-firing breaks trust and burns money.