# Cross Model Review > Adversarial plan review using two different AI models. Supports static mode (fixed roles) and alternating mode (models swap writer/reviewer each round, fully autonomous). Use when building features touching auth/payments/data models, or plans >1hr to implement. NOT for simple fixes, research tasks, or quick scripts. - Skill: `javimosch/cross-model-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add javimosch/cross-model-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/javimosch/cross-model-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: javimosch (https://skillmd.com/u/javimosch) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/javimosch/cross-model-review --- # cross-model-review ## Metadata ```yaml name: cross-model-review version: 2.0.0 description: > Adversarial plan review using two different AI models. v2: Alternating mode — models swap writer/reviewer each round. Fully autonomous loop — no human input between rounds. Use when: building features touching auth/payments/data models, plans that will take >1hr to implement. NOT for: simple one-file fixes, research tasks, quick scripts. triggers: - "review this plan" - "cross review" - "challenge this" - "is this plan solid?" - "adversarial review" ``` --- ## When to Activate Activate this skill when the user: - Says any trigger phrase above - Shares a plan and asks for adversarial/second-opinion review - Asks you to "sanity check" a multi-step implementation plan Do NOT activate for: simple fixes, one-liners, pure research tasks. --- ## Modes ### Static Mode (v1 — backward compatible) Fixed roles: planner always writes, reviewer always reviews. Requires human to trigger each round. ### Alternating Mode (v2 — recommended) Models swap roles each round. Fully autonomous — no human input between rounds. **Flow:** - Round 1: Model A writes the plan. Model B reviews. - Round 2: Model B rewrites (based on its own review). Model A reviews. - Round 3: Model A rewrites (based on its own review). Model B reviews. - ...continues alternating until both agree (reviewer says APPROVED) or max rounds hit. **Why this works:** - Each model must implement its own critique — can't nitpick without owning the fix - The other model catches over-engineering or proportionality issues - Natural convergence: each round addresses the other's concerns --- ## Autonomous Orchestration (Alternating Mode) You (the main agent) run this loop. It's fully autonomous after kickoff. ### Step 1 — Save the plan and init ```bash node review.js init \ --plan /path/to/plan.md \ --mode alternating \ --model-a "anthropic/claude-opus-4-6" \ --model-b "openai-codex/gpt-5.3-codex" \ --project-context "Brief description for reviewer calibration" \ --out /home/ubuntu/clawd/tasks/reviews ``` Captures workspace path from stdout. ### Step 2 — The autonomous loop ``` while true: step = next-step(workspace) if step.action == "done": break # APPROVED! if step.action == "max-rounds": ask user: override or manual fix break if step.action == "review": spawn sub-agent with step.model, step.prompt save response to workspace/round-N-response.json parse-round(workspace, round, response) continue if step.action == "revise": spawn sub-agent with step.model, step.prompt save output plan to temp file save-plan(workspace, temp file, version) continue ``` ### Step 3 — Finalize When the loop exits with APPROVED: ```bash node review.js finalize --workspace ``` Present: rounds taken, issues found/resolved, rubric scores, plan-final.md location. --- ## CLI Reference ``` Commands: init Create a review workspace next-step Get next action for autonomous loop parse-round Parse a reviewer response, update issue tracker save-plan Save a revised plan version from writer output finalize Generate plan-final.md, changelog.md, summary.json status Print current workspace state init options: --plan Path to plan file (required) --mode "static" (default) or "alternating" --model-a Model A — writes first (alternating mode, required) --model-b Model B — reviews first (alternating mode, required) --reviewer-model Reviewer model (static mode, required) --planner-model Planner model (static mode, required) --project-context Brief project context for reviewer calibration --out Output base dir (default: tasks/reviews) --max-rounds Max rounds (default: 5 static, 8 alternating) --token-budget Token budget for context (default: 8000) next-step options: --workspace Path to review workspace (required) Returns JSON: { action, model, round, prompt, planVersion, saveTo } Actions: "review", "revise", "done", "max-rounds" parse-round options: --workspace Path to review workspace (required) --round Round number (required) --response Path to raw reviewer response (required) save-plan options: --workspace Path to review workspace (required) --plan Path to revised plan markdown (required) --version Plan version number (required) finalize options: --workspace Path to review workspace (required) --override-reason Reason for force-approving with open issues --ci-force Required in non-TTY mode when overriding status options: --workspace Path to review workspace (required) Exit codes: 0 Approved / OK 1 Revise / max-rounds 2 Error ``` --- ## Detailed Orchestration (for agent implementation) ### Spawning reviewers ``` step = next-step(workspace) # action: "review" response = sessions_spawn(model=step.model, task=step.prompt, timeout=120s) # Save raw response to workspace/round-{step.round}-response.json parse-round(workspace, step.round, response_file) ``` System instruction for reviewer: "You are a senior engineering reviewer. Output ONLY valid JSON matching the schema. No tool calls. No markdown fences. No preamble." ### Spawning writers ``` step = next-step(workspace) # action: "revise" revised_plan = sessions_spawn(model=step.model, task=step.prompt, timeout=300s) # Save raw output as temp file save-plan(workspace, temp_file, step.planVersion) ``` System instruction for writer: none needed — the prompt is self-contained. ### Error handling - Reviewer timeout/failure: retry once, then ask user - Writer timeout/failure: retry once, then ask user - Parse error on review JSON: re-prompt reviewer once with "Your response was not valid JSON" - Max rounds hit: present status to user, ask for override or manual fix ### Convergence The loop converges when the reviewer says APPROVED with no open CRITICAL/HIGH blockers. The script enforces this — if reviewer says APPROVED but blockers remain, it overrides to REVISE. --- ## Static Mode (v1 — backward compatible) For static mode, the original orchestration from v1 still works: ### Step 1 — Init ```bash node review.js init --plan --reviewer-model --planner-model ``` ### Step 2 — Manual loop For each round: build reviewer prompt from template, spawn reviewer, parse-round, revise plan yourself, continue. ### Step 3 — Finalize Same as alternating mode. --- ## Integration with coding-agent Before dispatching any plan to coding-agent that: - Touches auth, payments, or data models - Has 3+ implementation steps - The user hasn't already reviewed adversarially Run cross-model-review first. Only proceed if exit code 0. --- ## Notes - Workspace persists in `tasks/reviews/` — referenceable later - `issues.json` tracks full lifecycle of all issues - `meta.json` stores mode, models, current round, verdict, needsRevision flag - `next-step` is the state machine — always call it to determine what to do - Dedup warnings help catch semantic drift across rounds - Models must be from different provider families (cross-provider enforcement) - `--project-context` is injected into reviewer prompts for calibration