kununu bridge-review
A peer agent reviews the work, you decide what is real.
1. Pick the peer
The invocation names the peer: /bridge-review gemini, /bridge-review codex,
/bridge-review claude. With no peer named, never make assumptions, ask the human which one to use.
If this skill has a references/<peer>.md, read it. It records that peer's quirks. No file
means no quirks.
2. Send the review
Call the Skill tool with "agent-bridge" and delegate to the peer.
The brief carries the context the peer cannot see:
- Goal. What this change is for, so it can judge whether the code is the simplest way there.
- Gotchas. The things you discovered during implemenation that the peer should be aware of. If there are none, just skip this section.
- Scope. Which files or which diff to review, by path or commit range.
- Standards, both layers: the coding-standards skill, and this repo's own conventions in AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, local project skills and any standards docs. Where the two disagree, the repo wins.
- Ask: code quality, adherence to both layers of standards, best practices, the simplest code that reaches the goal, efficiency & performance.
- The output shape: for each finding,
file:line, what breaks, and why it matters. Ranked, worst first. - Review only. It reports findings and leaves the working tree as it found it.
3. Verify every finding
Never act on a finding you have not checked against the code, or verified some other way (e.g. look up current documentation). How you check depends on the finding: read the file, run the test, try the input, write and run temp script. A finding is real once you can name what breaks or what will break. If you cannot name it, it is noise.
4. Fix or ask
Fix it yourself when the change is small and obvious:
- Cleanups that leave behavior identical: a standards violation, a code smell, the same logic written more simply.
- A real bug whose fix is clear and local, however serious it is.
Anything else goes in the summary instead of the diff: a fix that needs huge restructuring, or a finding you are not sure about. Say what you would do and let the human decide.
Then report every finding, what you fixed, and what you left.