review-panel
Review Panel
Have an artifact reviewed by reviewers who did not write it and do not share the authoring session's context, then decide what each finding is worth by checking it in the artifact. The result is a judgment table that marks every material finding valid, partially valid, or rejected with the evidence checked, the valid fixes applied within the granted scope, the relevant checks re-run, and the questions that need the user.
Findings are judged by evidence in the artifact, never by how many reviewers raised them. Reviewers who agree may share one premise: the same packet, the same stale document, the same misleading comment, or similar training. A single reviewer's finding whose evidence holds outranks two that agree without it, and agreement neither raises a finding's rank nor replaces checking it.
Scope
The skill covers code and diffs, research and system designs, design documents, evaluations and results, documents such as PR bodies and Notion pages, plans and work against intent, skills and skill packs, and operating processes or systems. Route nearby requests elsewhere:
- Posting validated findings as inline comments on a GitHub PR belongs to
pr-review-commentwhen installed; it can take this skill's valid findings as its candidates. - A launch, hold, or report verdict on a built evaluation, benchmark, judge, or result belongs to
evaluation-audit. This skill can borrow its checks as review criteria; the verdict stays there. - Attacking one stated idea or hunch belongs to
idea-critique. - A quick self-check that needs no separate reviewer needs no skill: check the work directly.
When a large artifact is split across many reviewers, orchestrate-subagents supplies dispatch and liveness mechanics. This skill owns the packet, the criteria, and the adjudication. Reviewers supply findings; the lead judges them.