kevin-liu-01 Cross-Modal Review — Second Opinion Quality Gate
Send work to a different AI model for independent review. The reviewer grades against the originating skill's Contract section — checking promises, not vibes.
Contract
This skill guarantees:
- Work product is reviewed by a different model before finalizing
- Review grades against the originating skill's Contract (what was promised)
- Agreement and disagreement reported transparently
- User always makes the final decision (user sovereignty)
- Never auto-applies reviewer suggestions
Phases
Phase 1: Capture Work Product
Identify what needs review:
- The brain page, code change, analysis, or decision
- The originating skill (which skill produced this output)
- The Contract section from that skill (what was promised)
Phase 2: Load the Contract
Read the originating skill's Contract section. This is the grading rubric.
Example: if the output came from gstack-review, load gstack-review/SKILL.md
and extract the Contract section.
If no originating skill (ad-hoc work), construct a minimal contract:
- What was the user's request?
- What did the agent promise to deliver?
- What quality bar was implied?
Phase 3: Spawn Review Model
Use Cursor's Task tool to spawn a subagent with a different model:
Task(
model: "fast" or a named alternative model,
prompt: "You are an independent reviewer. Grade this work against the Contract below.
CONTRACT:
{paste the Contract section}
WORK PRODUCT:
{paste the work to review}
For each promise in the Contract, answer: PASS or FAIL with specific evidence.
Then give an overall verdict: PASS / ISSUES FOUND.
List specific findings with evidence."
)
Phase 4: Synthesize
Present the review to Kevin:
Cross-Modal Review
==================
Reviewer: {model name}
Contract: {originating skill name}
Verdict: PASS | ISSUES FOUND
Contract compliance:
[PASS] {promise 1} — {evidence}
[FAIL] {promise 2} — {what's missing}
Findings:
1. {finding with evidence}
2. {finding with evidence}
Agreement with primary: {X}%
Recommendation: {accept / revise / redo}
Phase 5: User Decision
Present the findings. Kevin decides:
- Accept — ship as-is
- Revise — apply specific suggestions from the reviewer
- Redo — start over with reviewer's feedback incorporated
Never auto-apply. The reviewer is advisory.
Model Routing
| Review type | Recommended reviewer |
|---|---|
| Code review | Use fast model for quick check, named model for deep review |
| Design review | Use a different named model than the one that produced the design |
| Wiki page quality | Use fast — Contract compliance is straightforward |
| Architecture decision | Use the most capable available model |
Refusal Routing
If the review model refuses the task:
- Try the next model in the routing chain
- Never show the refusal to Kevin
- If ALL models refuse, tell Kevin: "Cross-modal review unavailable for this content."
Anti-Patterns
- Auto-applying reviewer suggestions without Kevin's approval
- Showing model refusals to the user
- Using the same model for review and generation
- Reviewing vibes instead of Contract compliance
- Skipping the Contract reference (no rubric = no useful review)
- Running cross-modal review on trivial tasks (not every wiki edit needs a second opinion)