# Multi AI Review > Get a second (and third) AI opinion on hard-to-reverse decisions. Runs the same prompt through different agent roles or model families in parallel, then reconciles disagreements. Inspired by gstack's `/codex` cross-review pattern. Activated for architecture decisions, security-sensitive code, pricing/packaging changes, deploy gates, legal-adjacent text, or any decision the user flags as "não dá pra desfazer fácil". - Skill: `lglucas/multi-ai-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add lglucas/multi-ai-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/lglucas/multi-ai-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: DevOps & Infra - Author: lglucas (https://skillmd.com/u/lglucas) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/lglucas/multi-ai-review --- # Multi-AI Review Solo reasoning ships solo blind spots. For decisions with hard-to-reverse blast radius, get at least one independent reviewer with a different prior and explicitly reconcile disagreements before committing. This is **not** ceremony. It is the cheapest mistake-prevention you can buy in an AI-assisted workflow: minutes of compute against hours-to-days of cleanup. --- ## When to invoke Mandatory: - Architecture decisions touching auth, data model, or payments. - Migrations, schema changes, or anything irreversible without a backup restore. - Pricing or packaging changes (also triggers `business-plan-impact-review`). - Public-facing legal/compliance text (Privacy Policy, Terms, refund policy, LGPD/GDPR statements). - Any deploy gate where rollback is non-trivial. - Adoption of a new external skill bundle (`#agents-marketplace` packs). - The user explicitly says "isso é importante" / "não posso errar aqui" / "double-check isso". Optional but recommended: - New feature spec right before sprint commitment. - Naming a public-facing thing you can't easily rename later (product name, API endpoint, slug). - Choosing between two non-trivially-different stacks. Skip: - Routine code edits, refactors, bug fixes with tests. - Reversible UI tweaks. - Internal-only docs. --- ## Reviewer roles (pick at least 2) The skill orchestrates multiple reviewers, each with a distinct lens. The user picks the relevant 2–4 per decision. Default set in **bold**. | Role | Lens | Existing agent (if any) | |------|------|-------------------------| | **Devil's advocate** | "Why is this wrong?" | `.claude/agents/devils-advocate-agent.md` | | **Technical/security red team** | "How does this break or get exploited?" | `.claude/agents/technical-security-red-team-agent.md` | | **Business red team** | "Why does this not make business sense?" | `.claude/agents/business-red-team-agent.md` | | Privacy/compliance | "Where does this leak personal data or trip LGPD/GDPR?" | uses `privacy-audit` skill | | Cost watchdog | "Where does this silently get expensive?" | uses `cost-watchdog` skill | | Plain-Portuguese reader | "Would a non-dev customer understand this?" | uses `plain-portuguese-explainer` skill | | Independent model | Same prompt, different model family (e.g. Sonnet ↔ Opus, or external `/codex`) | external | Always include at least one reviewer whose model family OR agent role is different from the agent that produced the artifact. Same-model self-review is weaker than independent review. --- ## Procedure 1. **Frame the decision artifact.** Provide the reviewers with: the decision/spec/diff, the explicit blast-radius statement, and the alternatives considered. 2. **Dispatch reviewers in parallel.** Each reviewer answers the same 4 questions: - What is your single biggest concern? - What is the most likely failure mode? - What is one alternative that should also be considered? - On a 0–10 scale, how confident are you the proposed direction is correct? 3. **Collect raw outputs verbatim.** Do not pre-summarize. 4. **Reconcile disagreements.** Produce a reconciliation note that lists: - Where reviewers agreed (treat as locked-in concerns). - Where reviewers disagreed (require human judgment). - Net confidence (lowest individual score, not the average). 5. **Decide.** Three possible outcomes: - **Proceed** — all reviewers ≥7 confidence, no unresolved high-severity disagreement. - **Modify and re-review** — one or more concerns require artifact change; re-run with the modified artifact. - **Block** — at least one reviewer ≤4 confidence on a hard-to-reverse aspect. Decision needs more research, alternatives, or human deliberation. 6. **Log in `session-log/`.** Always log the reconciliation, even (especially) for "Proceed" — future-you needs to know the decision was reviewed. --- ## Output format ```markdown ## Multi-AI Review — **Date:** **Decision artifact:** **Blast radius:** **Reviewers:** ### Raw reviewer outputs #### - Biggest concern: ... - Most likely failure mode: ... - Alternative: ... - Confidence: <0–10> #### ... ### Reconciliation - **Agreed concerns:** ... - **Disagreements requiring human judgment:** ... - **Net confidence (min):** <0–10> ### Decision - [ ] Proceed - [ ] Modify and re-review (next iteration: ) - [ ] Block ### Action items - ... ### Cross-link - Session log entry: `session-log/-.md` ``` --- ## Anti-patterns (will fail the review) - **Same-model echo chamber.** Asking the same Claude-Opus instance "are you sure?" is not multi-AI review. - **Average-the-confidence.** Net confidence is the **minimum** of individual scores, not the mean. The most worried reviewer represents the least-explored failure mode. - **Ignore the dissent.** A reviewer scoring 4 with a specific concern is more valuable than three reviewers scoring 9 with vague approval. - **Run after committing.** Review BEFORE the irreversible action. Post-hoc review is a session log, not a gate. - **Skip the log.** A review that wasn't logged didn't happen, from the perspective of the next session. --- ## Cost guardrails Each reviewer is a separate model invocation. For cost-conscious projects: - Default to 2 reviewers, escalate to 4 only for P0 blast radius. - Prefer existing in-repo agents (`devils-advocate-agent`, `technical-security-red-team-agent`, `business-red-team-agent`) over spawning external models for routine cases. - Use `cost-watchdog` to verify the cumulative review cost is within the project's monthly LLM budget, especially if the skill is invoked >5x/week. --- ## Cross-references - Principle: [`ETHOS.md`](../../../ETHOS.md) item 15. - Existing reviewer agents: [`.claude/agents/devils-advocate-agent.md`](../../agents/devils-advocate-agent.md), [`.claude/agents/technical-security-red-team-agent.md`](../../agents/technical-security-red-team-agent.md), [`.claude/agents/business-red-team-agent.md`](../../agents/business-red-team-agent.md). - Logging: [`decision-log`](../decision-log/SKILL.md) skill. - Often paired with: `/processize` (financial blast radius), `/grow-sustainably` (paid channel), `release-check` (deploy gate), `privacy-audit`, `business-plan-impact-review`. - Inspired by: [`docs/registry/packs/gstack.md`](../../../docs/registry/packs/gstack.md) (`/codex` multi-AI cross-review concept).