How do I install the Review Panel skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add iamneilroberts/review-panel in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Review Panel safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Review Panel?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Review Panel free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Review Panel?

iamneilroberts (@iamneilroberts) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Review Panel by iamneilroberts — Agent Skill

Name: Review Panel
Author: iamneilroberts

Review Panel

Run multiple independent code reviewers (Codex + Gemini + a fresh Claude) on the current diff or a plan, merge their structured verdicts, and apply a consensus-gated challenge round — returning a pass/fail exit code. Use for "panel review this", "get a multi-model review before I ship", "second-opinion review this diff", or /review-panel. Complements single-reviewer /codex-review.

File contents

review-panel

Delegate entirely to review-panel.sh — do not hand-run the reviewers or re-judge their verdicts.

When to use me (placement)

The panel is the pre-merge gate for a complex or elevated-risk diff (auth/privacy/cost/ data-loss/money/shared-contract) — three models are worth it when a mistake is asymmetric. It is not a per-task or after-every-change tool; running it on routine diffs burns tokens and trains you to skim findings. If the right timing/scope isn't obvious, run /review first — the orchestrator decides whether a panel is warranted vs a single /codex-review vs no review, sets the round budget, and dispatches here. Reserve the panel for one pass near merge, --focus-flagged at the actual risk.

Invocation

/review-panel [--base <ref> | --staged | --plan <file>] [--reviewers codex,gemini,claude] [--block-at 0-3] [--focus "…" | --focus-file <f>] [--strict] [--out <path>]

Rules (non-negotiable)

The scripts (review-panel.sh, merge.py) + sev.schema.json are committed and MUST NOT be edited during a review cycle. The implementer edits source, never the gate.
Do NOT re-judge the panel's verdict. A CRITICAL/IMPORTANT that survives the challenge round is fixed or escalated to a human — never argued away by this session.
Independence: the Claude reviewer runs as a fresh claude -p process; challenges are judged by other models. This session never reviews its own code.

Gate

Exit 0 clean · 1 blocking findings (fix or escalate) · 2 infra (a transient/reviewer failure or fewer than 2 reviewers — NOT clean) · 3 usage.

Cost

Default = 3 models × 1 diff; the challenge round fires only on cross-model disagreement and only re-asks the non-flagging models about specific findings. No loops.

Testing

Hermetic, no live model calls (the ~$60 lesson):

python3 .claude/skills/review-panel/tests/test_merge.py — unit tests for the pure merge.py. (Run the file directly; python3 -m unittest <path> fails because the path isn't a dotted module name.)
bash .claude/skills/review-panel/tests/run_integration.sh — usage gate, adapter-contract presence, and an offline end-to-end (buggy→1, clean→0, lone-refuted→0) driven by stub reviewers via REVIEW_PANEL_REVIEWER_DIR.

Set REVIEW_PANEL_LIVE=1 to additionally exercise the real reviewer CLIs (codex/gemini/claude) — the only path that spends model tokens. Absent CLIs are a clean SKIP.

---name: review-paneldescription: Run multiple independent code reviewers (Codex + Gemini + a fresh Claude) on the current diff or a plan, merge their structured verdicts, and apply a consensus-gated challenge round — returning a pass/fail exit code. Use for "panel review this", "get a multi-model review before I ship", "second-opinion review this diff", or /review-panel. Complements single-reviewer /codex-review.---# review-panelDelegate entirely to `review-panel.sh` — do not hand-run the reviewers or re-judge their verdicts.## When to use me (placement)The panel is the **pre-merge gate for a complex or elevated-risk diff** (auth/privacy/cost/data-loss/money/shared-contract) — three models are worth it when a mistake is asymmetric. It is**not** a per-task or after-every-change tool; running it on routine diffs burns tokens and trainsyou to skim findings. If the right timing/scope isn't obvious, run **`/review`** first — theorchestrator decides whether a panel is warranted vs a single `/codex-review` vs no review, setsthe round budget, and dispatches here. Reserve the panel for **one** pass near merge,`--focus`-flagged at the actual risk.## Invocation`/review-panel [--base <ref> | --staged | --plan <file>] [--reviewers codex,gemini,claude] [--block-at 0-3] [--focus "…" | --focus-file <f>] [--strict] [--out <path>]`## Rules (non-negotiable)- The scripts (`review-panel.sh`, `merge.py`) + `sev.schema.json` are committed and MUST NOT be edited during a review cycle. The implementer edits source, never the gate.- Do NOT re-judge the panel's verdict. A CRITICAL/IMPORTANT that survives the challenge round is fixed or escalated to a human — never argued away by this session.- Independence: the Claude reviewer runs as a fresh `claude -p` process; challenges are judged by other models. This session never reviews its own code.## GateExit `0` clean · `1` blocking findings (fix or escalate) · `2` infra (a transient/reviewer failure or fewer than 2 reviewers — NOT clean) · `3` usage.## CostDefault = 3 models × 1 diff; the challenge round fires only on cross-model disagreement and only re-asks the non-flagging models about specific findings. No loops.## TestingHermetic, no live model calls (the ~$60 lesson):- `python3 .claude/skills/review-panel/tests/test_merge.py` — unit tests for the pure `merge.py`. (Run the file directly; `python3 -m unittest <path>` fails because the path isn't a dotted module name.)- `bash .claude/skills/review-panel/tests/run_integration.sh` — usage gate, adapter-contract presence, and an offline end-to-end (`buggy→1`, `clean→0`, `lone-refuted→0`) driven by stub reviewers via `REVIEW_PANEL_REVIEWER_DIR`.Set `REVIEW_PANEL_LIVE=1` to additionally exercise the real reviewer CLIs (codex/gemini/claude) — the only path that spends model tokens. Absent CLIs are a clean SKIP.

Frequently asked questions