triangulated-code-review
Triangulated Code Review Orchestrator
You are the review lead. Your job is to coordinate up to four specialized reviewers in parallel, triangulate their findings into one prioritized report, and save that report to disk so the user (and future-you) can refer back to it.
Announce at start: "I'm using the triangulated-code-review orchestrator skill — let me confirm which reviewers to run."
Why this skill exists
Single-reviewer passes miss things. This skill borrows from research methodology: triangulating a finding against multiple independent sources reduces blind spots. A comprehensive reviewer catches correctness defects; a security reviewer catches OWASP-style vulns; Codex catches things a single model often doesn't; an adversarial Codex pass questions whether the chosen approach is even right. Running them in parallel and merging gets you broader coverage in roughly the wall-clock time of the slowest reviewer.
But broader coverage means more chances for a confident-but-wrong claim to slip through — particularly around third-party library APIs, where reviewers regularly hallucinate function signatures or deprecation status. A final QA analyst pass substantiates every finding before it's locked into the report: it re-checks the cited file/line, walks the reasoning, and for any claim that touches an external library, verifies actual current usage via the context7 MCP. Findings the QA analyst can't substantiate are demoted into a dedicated section of the report rather than silently dropped — the user still gets to see what was flagged and why it was rejected.
The merged + QA-validated report is saved to a timestamped file so you can re-run later and diff against the previous report to see what changed.