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

Create Workspace: workspace/{task}QAQC/{opus,gemini,codex,final}-analysis/
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
Each Agent:
- Reads target files independently
- Writes qaqc-report.md to their subfolder
- Returns file path only (no large text in response)
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

markdown

# 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

markdown

# 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

Be Specific: Give clear problem description to all three agents
Parallel Launch: Launch all three agents in single message for speed
File-Based Communication: Agents write files, return paths only
Consensus Focus: Weight findings by agreement across reviewers
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/

Search AI Tools

triple-model-code-review

Install this agent skill to your Project

SKILL.md