johnalbertini14-glitch review-orchestrator (審査)
Unified skill for selecting review types, spawning multi-perspective and cognitive review agents, and managing quality gates. Consolidates 5 granular skills into a single review system.
Trigger: レビュー要求 (review requested)
Source skills: twin-review, cognitive-review, review-selector, staged-quality-gate, prompt-normalizer
Installation
openclaw install leegitw/review-orchestrator
Dependencies:
leegitw/failure-memory(for context)leegitw/context-verifier(for file verification)
# Install with dependencies
openclaw install leegitw/context-verifier
openclaw install leegitw/failure-memory
openclaw install leegitw/review-orchestrator
Standalone usage: Review orchestration works independently for multi-perspective reviews. Integration with failure-memory enables automatic observation recording from review findings.
Data handling: This skill operates within your agent's trust boundary. When triggered,
it uses your agent's configured model for multi-perspective review orchestration. No external APIs
or third-party services are called. Review results are written to docs/reviews/ in your workspace.
What This Solves
One perspective has blind spots. This skill coordinates multiple review perspectives to catch what single-pass review misses:
- Twin review — technical and creative perspectives for balance
- Cognitive modes — analyzer ("what conflicts"), architect ("how to restructure"), implementer ("how to implement")
The insight: N=2 catches more than N=1. Different perspectives see different things. Coordinate them systematically.
Note: "Cognitive modes" are review perspectives with different analytical focus, not external API calls. Mode names (analyzer, architect, implementer) describe the review approach, not specific AI models or services.
Usage
/ro <sub-command> [arguments]
Sub-Commands
| Command | CJK | Logic | Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
/ro select |
選択 | context×risk→type∈{twin,cognitive,code} | Explicit |
/ro twin |
双子 | spawn(technical,creative)→findings[] | Explicit |
/ro cognitive |
認知 | spawn(modes[])→analysis[] | Explicit |
/ro multi |
双視 | alias for /ro twin (multi-perspective review) |
Explicit |
/ro gate |
門番 | staged_work→pass✓∨block✗ | Explicit |
Arguments
/ro select
| Argument | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | Description of work to review |
| --risk | No | Risk level: low, medium, high (auto-detected if omitted) |
/ro twin
| Argument | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | File path(s) or topic to review |
| --technical-only | No | Skip creative perspective |
| --creative-only | No | Skip technical perspective |
/ro cognitive
| Argument | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | File path(s) or topic to review |
| --modes | No | Cognitive modes: analyzer, architect, implementer (default: all) |
/ro multi
Alias for /ro twin. The name "twin" refers to the dual-perspective review pattern
(technical + creative), not a specific team structure. /ro multi is provided for
discoverability by users unfamiliar with the "twin" terminology.
/ro gate
| Argument | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| stage | Yes | Stage name or number to gate |
| --strict | No | Require all checks pass (default: true) |
| --allow-minor | No | Allow minor issues to pass |
Core Logic
Review Type Selection
| Context | Risk | Recommended Review |
|---|---|---|
| Implementation | Low | /ro twin --technical-only |
| Implementation | Medium | /ro twin (both perspectives) |
| Implementation | High | /ro twin + /ro cognitive |
| Architecture | Any | /ro cognitive |
| Documentation | Any | /ro twin --creative-only |
| Security | Any | /ro cognitive + external review |
Multi-Perspective Review
| Perspective | Focus | CJK |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | Architecture, standards, patterns, security | 技術 |
| Creative | UX, communication, philosophy alignment | 創造 |
Cognitive Modes
Cognitive modes provide different analytical perspectives. Modes are configurable; defaults shown below.
| Mode | Perspective | Focus | CJK |
|---|---|---|---|
| analyzer | "Here's what conflicts" | Tensions, trade-offs, contradictions | 審碼 |
| architect | "Here's how to restructure" | Architecture, patterns, organization | 審構 |
| implementer | "Here's how to implement" | Concrete steps, complexity, path forward | 審実 |
Note: Mode names are perspective-based, not model-specific. The underlying model used for each mode is configurable (see Configuration section below).
Configuration
Configuration is loaded from (in order of precedence):
.openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml(OpenClaw standard).claude/review-orchestrator.yaml(Claude Code compatibility)- Defaults (built-in)
Cognitive Mode Interface
Each cognitive mode implements this interface:
| Field | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | string | Yes | Mode identifier (e.g., "analyzer", "architect") |
| perspective | string | Yes | Human-readable perspective description |
| prompt_prefix | string | Yes | Prompt prefix for this mode's analysis |
| model_hint | string | No | Optional model preference (not enforced) |
Cognitive Mode Configuration
# .openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml
cognitive_modes:
- id: analyzer
perspective: "Here's what conflicts"
prompt_prefix: "Analyze tensions, trade-offs, and conflicts in..."
model_hint: "prefer analytical model"
- id: architect
perspective: "Here's how to restructure"
prompt_prefix: "Suggest architectural improvements for..."
model_hint: "prefer architectural model"
- id: implementer
perspective: "Here's how to implement"
prompt_prefix: "Provide implementation guidance for..."
model_hint: "prefer practical model"
Quality Gate Configuration
# .openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml
quality_gates:
test_command: "npm test" # Node.js (default)
# test_command: "go test ./..." # Go
# test_command: "pytest" # Python
# test_command: "cargo test" # Rust
coverage_threshold: 5 # Max allowed coverage drop (%)
require_docs: true # Require documentation updates
Quality Gate Checks
| Check | Condition | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | {test_command} exit 0 |
Critical |
| Coverage maintained | delta ≤ {coverage_threshold}% |
Important |
| No critical findings | review.critical == 0 | Critical |
| Docs updated | changed files have docs (if require_docs) |
Minor |
Checks use configured values from
quality_gatessection. Defaults: test_command=npm test, coverage_threshold=5, require_docs=true.
Output
/ro select output
[REVIEW SELECTION]
Context: "Refactoring authentication handler"
Risk: Medium (auto-detected: changes auth code)
Recommended: /ro twin
Rationale: Medium-risk implementation benefits from both technical and creative perspectives.
Alternative: /ro cognitive (for deeper architectural analysis)
/ro twin output
[MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW INITIATED]
Target: src/handlers/auth.go
Perspectives: technical, creative
--- Technical Perspective Findings ---
Severity: important
- I-1: Missing error handling on line 45
- I-2: Consider extracting validation logic
Severity: minor
- M-1: Inconsistent naming convention
--- Creative Perspective Findings ---
Severity: minor
- M-1: Error messages could be more user-friendly
- M-2: Consider adding debug logging for operators
Verdict: Approved with conditions
/ro cognitive output
[COGNITIVE REVIEW INITIATED]
Target: docs/architecture/auth-flow.md
Modes: analyzer, architect, implementer
--- Analyzer Perspective (Conflicts) ---
- Tension between security and usability in token refresh
- Trade-off: session duration vs re-auth frequency
--- Architect Perspective (Restructure) ---
- Suggested: Extract token service from handler
- Benefit: Cleaner separation of concerns
--- Implementer Perspective (Implement) ---
- Implementation path: 3 stages
- Estimated complexity: Medium
Verdict: Approved
/ro gate output (pass)
[QUALITY GATE: Stage 2]
Status: ✓ PASSED
Checks:
- ✓ Tests pass (exit 0)
- ✓ Coverage maintained (delta: -1.2%)
- ✓ No critical findings
- ✓ Documentation updated
Proceed to Stage 3.
/ro gate output (block)
[QUALITY GATE: Stage 2]
Status: ✗ BLOCKED
Checks:
- ✓ Tests pass
- ✗ Coverage dropped (delta: -8.3%, threshold: 5%)
- ✓ No critical findings
- ✗ Documentation not updated
Action required before proceeding:
1. Add tests to restore coverage
2. Update docs/handlers/README.md
Example: API Design Review
/ro cognitive api/openapi.yaml --modes analyzer,architect
[COGNITIVE REVIEW INITIATED]
Target: api/openapi.yaml
Modes: analyzer, architect
--- Analyzer Perspective (Conflicts) ---
- Tension: Versioning strategy (URL vs header) inconsistent across endpoints
- Trade-off: Pagination style (cursor vs offset) mixed usage
--- Architect Perspective (Restructure) ---
- Suggested: Standardize on cursor pagination for large collections
- Benefit: Consistent client SDK, better performance at scale
Verdict: Approved with conditions
Example: Performance Review
/ro twin src/handlers/search.go --technical-only
[MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW INITIATED]
Target: src/handlers/search.go
Perspectives: technical
--- Technical Perspective Findings ---
Severity: important
- I-1: N+1 query pattern on line 78 (database calls in loop)
- I-2: Missing index on search_terms table
Severity: minor
- M-1: Consider caching frequent searches (>100 req/min)
Verdict: Approved with conditions
Integration
- Layer: Review
- Depends on: failure-memory (for context), context-verifier (for file verification)
- Used by: governance (for constraint reviews)
Failure Modes
| Condition | Behavior |
|---|---|
| Invalid sub-command | List available sub-commands |
| Target not found | Error: "Target not found: {path}" |
| Agent spawn failed | Retry once, then report failure |
| Gate check failed | Block with specific remediation steps |
Next Steps
After invoking this skill:
| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| Review complete | Write findings to docs/reviews/ |
| Gate passed | Proceed to next stage |
| Gate blocked | Address findings, re-run gate |
| Critical findings | Create observation via /fm record |
Workspace Files
This skill reads/writes:
docs/reviews/
├── [date]-[topic]-twin-technical.md
├── [date]-[topic]-twin-creative.md
├── [date]-[topic]-cognitive.md
└── [date]-[topic]-gate-results.md
Security Considerations
What this skill accesses:
- Configuration files in
.openclaw/review-orchestrator.yamland.claude/review-orchestrator.yaml - Target files specified by user for review (read-only)
- Its own output directory
docs/reviews/
What this skill does NOT access:
- Files outside declared workspace paths
- System environment variables
- Network resources or external APIs
- Other tools' configuration
What this skill does NOT do:
- Invoke AI models directly (instruction-only skill)
- Call external services (Codex, Gemini, or any third-party API)
- Send data to external services
- Modify files outside its workspace (only writes to
docs/reviews/) - Execute arbitrary code
Cognitive modes clarification: Mode names like "analyzer", "architect", and "implementer" describe review perspectives (analytical approaches), NOT external AI services. The skill provides prompts and structure; your agent executes the review using its configured model.
Configuration files:
The config files (.openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml and .claude/review-orchestrator.yaml)
contain only local behavior settings (cognitive mode definitions, quality gate thresholds).
They do NOT contain API keys, tokens, or external service endpoints by design.
Dependency clarification:
References to failure-memory and context-verifier are skill-level dependencies installed
via openclaw install. These are separate instruction-only skills with their own declared
permissions — this skill does not grant them additional access or inherit their permissions.
Provenance note:
This skill is developed by Live Neon (https://github.com/live-neon/skills) and published
to ClawHub under the leegitw account. Both refer to the same maintainer.
Acceptance Criteria
-
/ro selectrecommends appropriate review type based on context and risk -
/ro twin(or/ro multi) spawns both technical and creative perspectives -
/ro twinaggregates findings from both perspectives -
/ro cognitivespawns configured cognitive modes (default: analyzer, architect, implementer) -
/ro cognitivepresents different perspectives clearly -
/ro gatechecks all configured quality criteria -
/ro gateblocks on critical failures -
/ro gateprovides clear remediation guidance - Review findings written to workspace files
- Configuration loaded from
.openclaw/or.claude/paths
Consolidated from 5 skills as part of agentic skills consolidation (2026-02-15).