# Review Panel

> Use when the user has iterated on a design, plan, spec, architecture, code, or prose over several rounds and can no longer judge it cleanly, before a high-stakes or hard-to-reverse decision, or when they ask for "fresh eyes", "a second opinion", "red team this", "poke holes in this", "sanity-check this independently", "am I anchored" / "too close to this", "critique this from different angles", or run "/review-panel". Prefer this over reviewing the artifact yourself — its value is convening fresh reviewer subagents that are blind to this conversation and to each other, which a review you run while anchored on the same context cannot replicate. Requires spawning fresh-context reviewers (subagents where the harness has them; sequential clean contexts otherwise); always show the plan and rough cost and ask before firing. Not for a quick factual check, a single obvious answer, or a first-pass review of something just created.

- Skill: `grimaldost/review-panel` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 8 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add grimaldost/review-panel`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/grimaldost/review-panel/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Productivity
- Author: grimaldost (https://skillmd.com/u/grimaldost)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/grimaldost/review-panel

---


# Review Panel

Fresh, independent eyes on something you have been too close to. After many rounds
on an artifact, both the user and the model **anchor** on the current direction —
each new pass defends it rather than questioning it. A panel of agents that have
*never seen the iteration*, pointed at the artifact from adversarial angles,
surfaces what the anchored view structurally cannot. The deliverable is a
**comparison and synthesis**, not a single opinion.

## When to convene — and at what size

Convene when the cost of being wrong exceeds the cost of the panel:

- you have iterated many rounds and genuinely can't tell if it's good anymore;
- a high-stakes or hard-to-reverse decision (architecture, a launch, a structural choice) —
  **including a design or spec _before_ any build**, where pre-code defects (a wrong interface, a
  missed failure mode, a motivated assumption) are cheapest to fix;
- **an irreversible outward step is next** — publishing a repo, cutting a release, going
  public: the artifact is "done" and self-verified, which is exactly when fresh eyes still
  find what the author's own verification missed (measured twice on launch-ready trees);
- an explicit ask: "fresh eyes", "second opinion", "red team", "poke holes", "am I anchored", `/review-panel`.

**A design/spec is panel-ready only when it is concrete enough to critique** — explicit interfaces,
failure modes, data flow, and at least one worked example. Panelling a bare sketch or intent yields
bikeshedding and false confidence, not defects; iterate it to concreteness first (or fire a single
Level-1 contrarian instead). Design-stage review is a qualifier on the high-stakes trigger above,
not a standing "always review the design" gate.

Scale effort to stakes — **the ladder** (don't fire a full panel at a Level-1 question):

| Level | Convene | For |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Solo contrarian | 1 fresh agent told to *refute* | a quick gut-check |
| 2 — Small panel | 2–3 lenses (skeptic + domain expert [+ user]) | a normal decision |
| 3 — Full panel | 4–5 lenses | an expensive / irreversible call |

## The protocol — this is what makes it work

1. **Curate a NEUTRAL artifact brief.** Like a context hand-off, but stripped of
   your conclusions: give reviewers the artifact and what to judge, never "here's
   what I decided, do you agree?".
2. **Pick the lenses.** Default quartet: **Skeptic/Minimalist**, **Best-Practices
   Auditor**, **End-User Advocate**, **Domain Expert**. For depth, load the persona
   pack for the artifact type (below) and tailor a couple of personas to specifics.
3. **Make them adversarial.** Frame the job as *refute / find what's missing*,
   not "review" — independence over politeness. What blindness requires
   mechanically is a guard-rail below.
4. **Demand structured, comparable output** — a fixed per-reviewer schema (verdict +
   scores + reasons) so results sit side by side. See `references/prompt-template.md`.
5. **Fire them — mechanism by ladder level.** Levels 1–2: one fresh reviewer per
   lens, concurrently (Claude Code: one message, multiple Agent calls; Opus for
   high stakes).
   Level 3, or any panel that needs per-lens reasoning-effort control: drive the
   lenses through the Workflow tool — `agent(prompt, {effort, schema})` per lens
   — which buys what the Agent tool does not expose: reasoning-effort control and
   schema-forced, mechanically comparable output. If the Workflow tool is not
   available in the session, fall back to the Levels 1–2 mechanism (concurrent
   Agent calls), accepting the loss of per-lens effort control. **Show the plan first** — lenses, agent count, rough cost —
   and get a go-ahead; never fire silently. A **durable pre-authorization**
   counts as the go-ahead: show the plan, cite the grant, and fire — an
   autonomous session that insists on a fresh ask deadlocks the panel.
6. **Persist raw output before synthesis.** Write each reviewer's structured
   output to disk as it lands, at a destination named in the plan (the reviewed
   tool's own feedback intake is often right). A max-effort panel returns more
   than in-band messages carry — a truncated notification, or a dead
   orchestrator, loses the corpus; the output file is often the only copy. When a
   verify stage follows the lenses, collect the findings in a barrier before it —
   a pipeline that drops a finding on a verifier's error loses a real finding to a
   coarse failure, not to a refutation.
   **When the panel is a script, this is a stage in the harness, not a step for
   its operator** — write inside the stage that produces the output. Read as an
   operator's step it gets implemented as nothing: one panel script persisted no
   verdicts, and a dead synthesis would have taken a seven-agent corpus with it.
7. **Synthesize — don't average.** Produce a comparison matrix, where they **agree**
   (consensus = high confidence), where they **disagree** (the tension worth
   examining), and — most important for an anchored author — **where the panel
   diverges from the current direction, and what you may be missing.**

## Persona packs — load the one that fits

| Artifact | Pack | Lenses |
|---|---|---|
| design / spec / architecture | `references/personas-design.md` | architect · skeptic · user · ops |
| code / a diff | `references/personas-code.md` | security · performance · correctness · maintainability |
| writing / docs | `references/personas-writing.md` | editor · fact-checker · audience · misreader |
| plan / decision | `references/personas-plan.md` | premortem · dependencies · cost · stakeholder |
| research / a claim | `references/personas-research.md` | refuter · methodology · sources · bias |
| a release (assembled diff + changelog + docs) | `references/personas-release.md` | consumer-upgrade · docs-coherence · changelog · interactions |

The default quartet works for anything; the packs sharpen it. Mix and match.

## Guard-rails

- **Requires fresh-context reviewers.** With a subagent primitive (Claude Code),
  spawn them; without one, run each lens sequentially in a clean context or
  session — or paste the neutral artifact brief into N separate fresh chats
  yourself. Independence survives the fallback; concurrency is what you lose.
- **Cost is real.** A capacity-dispatch policy, when installed (e.g. humblepowers'
  choosing-models), sets reviewer tier by stakes; otherwise offer to drop a ladder level.
- **Reviewing a repo whose plugin is also installed?** State which copy the panel
  reads (working tree vs installed cache) — the two diverge in either direction
  mid-release.
- **Blindness is a filesystem boundary, not a briefing style.** A reviewer with
  file tools is blind only to what it cannot open, so the brief enumerates the
  out-of-bounds paths by name — including version-control history, which carries
  your justification even when the diff does not. A rule scoped to the panel's
  own output directory is nominal while the repo and the spec sit open on disk.
  The template has the slot.
- **You synthesize; they don't decide.** The panel informs; the call stays with the
  user. Surface the range, including the lone dissent — a 3–1 split is signal.

## What this does NOT do

- Audit a large file corpus — that is a blind fan-out over many files; use
  `corpus-review`.
- Auto-fire — it proposes and waits for the go-ahead.
- Reach consensus by averaging — disagreement is the signal, not noise.