Triple Model Code Review

Triple Model Code Review

Overview

This skill launches three independent AI subagents (Opus, Gemini, Codex) to perform parallel code review. Each agent writes findings to markdown files in a workspace directory, then the orchestrator synthesizes a final report.

When to Use

• Critical bug investigation requiring multiple perspectives
• QA/QC of important notebooks or modules
• Validation of complex logic
• Cross-checking findings before major changes
• When high confidence in analysis is required

Usage

/triple_model_code_review [target] [focus_area]

Examples:

• /triple_model_code_review examples/720_precipitation_methods_comprehensive.ipynb "plotting logic"
• /triple_model_code_review ras_commander/hdf/HdfResultsPlan.py "return type consistency"
• /triple_model_code_review ras_commander/precip/ "API contract validation"

Workflow

1. Create Workspace: workspace/{task}QAQC/{opus,gemini,codex,final}-analysis/

2. Launch 3 Parallel Subagents:

   • Opus (general-purpose, model=opus): Deep reasoning, architecture analysis
   • Gemini (code-oracle-gemini): Large context, multi-file pattern analysis
   • Codex (code-oracle-codex): Code archaeology, API contract analysis

3. Each Agent:

   • Reads target files independently
   • Writes qaqc-report.md to their subfolder
   • Returns file path only (no large text in response)

4. Orchestrator Synthesizes:

   • Reads all three reports
   • Identifies consensus findings
   • Creates FINAL_QAQC_REPORT.md with agreement matrix

Subagent Prompts

Opus Subagent

You are conducting an independent QA/QC analysis of [TARGET].

## Critical Issue
[DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]

## Your Task
1. Read and analyze the target files
2. Identify root cause of the issue
3. Document specific line numbers and code evidence
4. Provide recommended fixes

## Output
Write comprehensive analysis to: workspace/[TASK]QAQC/opus-analysis/qaqc-report.md

Return ONLY the file path when complete.

Gemini Subagent

You are conducting an independent QA/QC analysis using large context capabilities.

## Critical Issue
[DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]

## Your Task
1. Read ALL relevant files in the target area
2. Trace data flow from source to symptom
3. Document column/type confusion if applicable
4. Provide method-by-method analysis

## Output
Write analysis to: workspace/[TASK]QAQC/gemini-analysis/qaqc-report.md

Return ONLY the file path when complete.

Codex Subagent

You are conducting deep code analysis for QA/QC.

## Critical Issue
[DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]

## Your Task
1. Deep analysis of target code
2. Code archaeology - how was bug introduced
3. API contract analysis - promises vs delivery
4. Test cases that would catch this bug

## Output
Write analysis to: workspace/[TASK]QAQC/codex-analysis/qaqc-report.md

Return ONLY the file path when complete.

Output Structure

workspace/{task}QAQC/
├── opus-analysis/
│   └── qaqc-report.md      # Deep reasoning analysis
├── gemini-analysis/
│   └── qaqc-report.md      # Large context analysis
├── codex-analysis/
│   └── qaqc-report.md      # Code archaeology analysis
└── final-synthesis/
    └── FINAL_QAQC_REPORT.md  # Consensus findings

Report Template

Individual Reports

# QA/QC Analysis Report: [Target]

**Analyst**: [Model Name]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Target**: [file/folder]
**Status**: [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

## 1. Summary of Findings
## 2. Root Cause Analysis
## 3. Code Evidence (with line numbers)
## 4. Impact Assessment
## 5. Recommended Fixes
## 6. Verification Steps

Final Synthesis

# Final QA/QC Synthesis Report

## Executive Summary
## Consensus Bug List
## Agreement Matrix (which reviewers found what)
## Required Fixes (with exact code changes)
## Verification Criteria

Best Practices

1. Be Specific: Give clear problem description to all three agents
2. Parallel Launch: Launch all three agents in single message for speed
3. File-Based Communication: Agents write files, return paths only
4. Consensus Focus: Weight findings by agreement across reviewers
5. Preserve Evidence: Keep all reports in workspace for audit trail

Example Session

User: /triple_model_code_review examples/720_precipitation_methods_comprehensive.ipynb "incremental vs cumulative confusion"

Claude: Creating workspace and launching 3 independent reviewers...

[Launches Opus, Gemini, Codex in parallel]

All three reviewers identified the same bugs:
- Line 810: DataFrame passed instead of column
- Line 1396: DataFrame passed instead of column
- Lines 1777-1789: np.cumsum on DataFrame

Reports saved to workspace/notebook720QAQC/

See Also

• Subagent Output Pattern: .claude/rules/subagent-output-pattern.md
• Agent Integration Testing: .claude/rules/testing/agent-integration-testing.md
• Orchestrator Pattern: Root CLAUDE.md - Orchestrator section