ReddRadar
Agent skill
agent-cross-review
Structured cross-review protocol between specialized agents. Ensures scope alignment, priority calibration, and domain-aware feedback. Use when one agent reviews another's work, during handoffs, or when validating cross-cutting concerns.
Stars
163
Forks
31
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/tree/main/skills/data/agent-cross-review
SKILL.md
Agent Cross-Review
Protocol for structured collaboration between specialized agents.
When to Use
- One agent reviewing another's output
- Handoff between feature and expert agents
- Validating cross-cutting concerns
- Resolving conflicting recommendations
Core Principle
Review in domain, defer on scope.
Each agent excels in their specialty. Cross-review catches blind spots without overstepping boundaries.
Review Protocol
Step 1: Scope Identification
Before reviewing, identify:
markdown
## Cross-Review Context
| Item | Value |
|------|-------|
| Reviewer | {agent-name} |
| Author | {agent-name} |
| Artifact | {file or output} |
| Review Type | Technical / Structural / Integration |
Step 2: Domain Check
| Reviewer Type | Review Focus | Defer On |
|---|---|---|
| Feature Agent | Structure, naming, coverage | Pytest patterns, DRY |
| Expert Agent | Code quality, patterns | Project conventions |
| Architecture | Boundaries, dependencies | Implementation details |
Step 3: Calibrated Feedback
Use priority tiers:
markdown
### Cross-Review: {artifact}
**CRITICAL** (blocks merge)
- [Issue affecting correctness or security]
**MAJOR** (should fix)
- [Issue affecting maintainability]
**MINOR** (nice to have)
- [Improvement suggestion]
**DEFER** (out of scope for this review)
- [Valid concern but not reviewer's domain]
Role-Specific Protocols
feature-interface-cli Reviewing expert-python
Focus Areas:
- Test file naming follows project conventions
- Coverage targets CLI-critical paths
- Integration with existing command structure
Defer To expert-python:
- Fixture design decisions
- pytest marker selection
- Test helper organization
Template:
markdown
## CLI Feature Review
### Structure
- [ ] Test files in correct location
- [ ] Naming follows test_{feature}_cmd.py
- [ ] Coverage priorities align with CLI usage
### Concerns for expert-python
- [List items needing pytest expertise]
expert-python Reviewing feature-interface-cli
Focus Areas:
- Type hints complete and correct
- pytest patterns followed
- DRY violations identified
Defer To feature-interface-cli:
- CLI-specific testing approaches
- Typer/Rich patterns
- Project structure decisions
Template:
markdown
## Python Quality Review
### Code Quality
- [ ] Type hints present on public functions
- [ ] No mutable default arguments
- [ ] Error handling is specific
### Test Quality
- [ ] Fixtures use appropriate scope
- [ ] No duplicate fixture definitions
- [ ] AAA pattern followed
### Concerns for feature-interface-cli
- [List items needing project context]
Handoff Protocol
From Feature Agent to Expert Agent
markdown
## Handoff: {feature} implementation
### Completed
- [What's done]
### Needs Review
- [Specific areas needing expert input]
### Context
- [Domain-specific decisions made and why]
### Questions
1. [Specific question for expert]
From Expert Agent to Feature Agent
markdown
## Technical Recommendations: {area}
### Recommendations
1. [Recommendation with rationale]
### Priority Assessment
- **Now**: [Must address before merge]
- **Soon**: [Address in follow-up]
- **Later**: [Nice to have]
### Scope Consideration
- [Note if recommendation needs project context validation]
Conflict Resolution
When agents disagree:
Priority Framework
| Concern Type | Primary Authority |
|---|---|
| Project conventions | Feature agent |
| Language patterns | Expert agent |
| Test structure | Shared (use pytest-fixtures skill) |
| Architecture | Architecture skill/agent |
Resolution Steps
- State the conflict clearly
- Identify domain - whose expertise applies?
- Check project context - what do existing patterns show?
- Propose compromise - can both concerns be addressed?
- Escalate if needed - ask user for decision
Common Pitfalls
| Pitfall | Example | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Scope creep | Expert suggesting CLI changes | Defer with note |
| Missing context | Recommending unused pattern | Check project first |
| Priority mismatch | Low priority as critical | Use tier framework |
| Over-optimization | Refactor working code | Focus on current task |
Output Format
Quick Review
markdown
## Cross-Review Summary
**Artifact**: {file/output}
**Verdict**: Approve / Needs Changes / Discuss
### In My Domain
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
### Deferred (not my domain)
- [Observation for other agent]
Detailed Review
markdown
## Cross-Review: {artifact}
### Context
- Author: {agent}
- Reviewer: {agent}
- Type: {technical/structural}
### Findings
**CRITICAL**
- None / [issues]
**MAJOR**
- [issues]
**MINOR**
- [issues]
### Deferred Items
| Item | Recommended Reviewer | Reason |
|------|---------------------|--------|
| X | expert-python | pytest expertise |
| Y | feature-cli | project conventions |
### Verdict
[Approve / Needs Changes]
Quality Checklist
- Identified review scope before starting
- Focused on domain expertise
- Used priority tiers appropriately
- Deferred out-of-domain concerns
- Provided actionable feedback
- Considered project context
Didn't find tool you were looking for?