Multi-Model Code Review (4 Models)

Legacy Claude-only orchestration skill. This workflow coordinates external/provider-specific reviewers from Claude. It is excluded from the shared multi-harness corpus and is not part of the standard production QAQC path.

Overview

When the user explicitly requests this legacy provider-mixed workflow, invoke this skill. Launch four independent AI subagents (Opus, Gemini, Codex, and Kimi K2.5) to perform parallel code review. Each agent writes findings to markdown files in a workspace directory, then the orchestrator synthesizes a final report with consensus findings.

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"
• /triple_model_code_review src/auth/login.py "security vulnerabilities"

Workflow

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

2. Launch 4 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
   • Kimi K2.5 (code-oracle-kimi): Edge case detection, test generation focus, QA verification

3. Handle Model Failures (Graceful Degradation):

   • If a model fails or is unavailable, note it and continue
   • Synthesis works with 1-4 successful models
   • Report which models succeeded/failed to user

4. Each Agent:

   • Reads target files independently
   • Writes qaqc-report.md to their subfolder
   • Returns file path only (no large text in response)
   • If agent fails, creates empty report with error note

5. Orchestrator Synthesizes:

   • Reads all available reports (1-4)
   • Identifies consensus findings from successful models
   • Creates FINAL_QAQC_REPORT.md with agreement matrix
   • Highlights unique insights from each successful model
   • Notes which models were unavailable

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.

Kimi K2.5 Subagent (NEW)

You are conducting QA/QC analysis with focus on edge cases, testing gaps, and quality verification.

## Critical Issue
[DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]

## Your Task
1. Identify edge cases and boundary conditions not handled
2. Find gaps in error handling and validation
3. Analyze test coverage - what tests are missing?
4. Check for race conditions and concurrency issues
5. Verify API contracts and type safety
6. Suggest specific test cases that would catch bugs

## Unique Focus Areas
- Edge case detection (null, undefined, empty inputs, extreme values)
- Test coverage gaps
- Error handling completeness
- Security vulnerabilities
- Performance bottlenecks

## Output
Write analysis to: workspace/[TASK]QAQC/kimi-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
├── kimi-analysis/              # NEW
│   └── qaqc-report.md          # Edge case & testing 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
## 7. Test Cases Needed (Kimi specific)

Final Synthesis

# Final QA/QC Synthesis Report

## Executive Summary
## Consensus Bug List
## Agreement Matrix (which reviewers found what)
  - Opus: [findings]
  - Gemini: [findings]
  - Codex: [findings]
  - Kimi: [findings]  # Edge cases & testing gaps
## Unique Insights by Model
  - Opus: [architectural issues]
  - Gemini: [multi-file patterns]
  - Codex: [API contract violations]
  - Kimi: [edge cases, missing tests, security gaps]
## Required Fixes (with exact code changes)
## Test Coverage Recommendations
## Verification Criteria

Model Strengths Matrix

Model	Best For	Unique Strengths
Opus	Architecture, logic flow	Deep reasoning, system design
Gemini	Large codebases	1M+ token context, multi-file analysis
Codex	Implementation details	Code archaeology, API contracts
Kimi K2.5	Edge cases, testing	Boundary conditions, test gaps, security

Best Practices

1. Be Specific: Give clear problem description to all four agents
2. Parallel Launch: Launch all four 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
6. Consider Kimi's Edge Cases: Kimi often finds issues others miss - don't ignore unique findings
7. Test Generation: Use Kimi's test recommendations to improve coverage

Error Handling, Examples, and Troubleshooting

For graceful degradation protocols, example sessions, model failure troubleshooting, and partial results handling, see references/error-handling-and-examples.md.

Integration with Other Skills

Use these for follow-up after the multi-model review:

• dev_invoke_kimi-cli -- Follow up with Kimi-specific testing
• dev_invoke_gemini-cli -- Deep dive on Gemini findings
• dev_invoke_codex-cli -- Implement fixes identified
• using-git-worktrees -- Create isolated workspace for fixes

Cross-References

Skills (related workflows):

• dev_invoke_codex-cli -- Codex CLI for one of the review models
• dev_invoke_gemini-cli -- Gemini CLI for one of the review models
• dev_invoke_kimi-cli -- Kimi CLI for one of the review models

Agents (delegate when needed):

• code-oracle-codex -- Codex oracle agent
• code-oracle-gemini -- Gemini oracle agent