multi-reviewer-patterns — Claude Code skill: what it does, install
This skill coordinates parallel reviews across code-quality dimensions and merges the results into one report. Use it when a change needs several review angles.
/plugin marketplace add wshobson/agents
/plugin install agent-teams@claude-code-workflowsWhat multi-reviewer-patterns does
multi-reviewer-patterns assigns review dimensions such as security, performance, architecture, testing, and accessibility. It also gives suggested combinations for API endpoint changes, frontend components, database migrations, authentication changes, and full feature reviews.
The skill deduplicates findings by file and line, merges reports about the same issue, and keeps different issues separate. When reviewers disagree on severity, it uses the higher rating. A consolidated report can include the location, dimension, description, impact, fix, and a summary table.
Install it when a change needs several review perspectives and one prioritized result. For a simple single-review pass, this workflow may add unnecessary coordination.
What it helps with
- assign review dimensions to a code change
- merge duplicate findings from several reviewers
- calibrate Critical, High, Medium, and Low ratings
- produce one consolidated code review report
Example prompts for the agent
- Review this API endpoint with multi-reviewer-patterns and choose the relevant dimensions.
- Merge the findings from `security-review.md` and `performance-review.md`, deduplicating issues at the same file and line.
- Create a consolidated report for the changes in `src/auth`, with findings grouped by severity.
How to install multi-reviewer-patterns
1Plugin marketplace
/plugin marketplace add wshobson/agents/plugin install agent-teams@claude-code-workflowsThis installs the whole agent-teams plugin with all its skills
2Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill multi-reviewer-patterns -a claude-code3Manually: put the files in place
~/.claude/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.mdCopy the whole skill folder; for one project use .claude/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill multi-reviewer-patterns -a codex2Manually: put the files in place
.agents/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.mdFor all projects use ~/.agents/skills/
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill multi-reviewer-patterns -a cursor2Manually: put the files in place
.cursor/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.mdCursor also reads .agents/skills/ and .claude/skills/
1GitHub CLI
gh skill install wshobson/agents multi-reviewer-patterns2Manually: put the files in place
.github/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.mdPlatform CLI
gemini skills install https://github.com/wshobson/agents --path plugins/agent-teams/skills/multi-reviewer-patternsManually: put the files in place
.devin/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.mdThe legacy .windsurf/skills/ path still works
Claude.ai
Zip the folder and upload it in Settings → Capabilities → Skills
From the same set213
The whole set →Similar
Questions about multi-reviewer-patterns
How do I install multi-reviewer-patterns in Claude Code?
Run npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill multi-reviewer-patterns -a claude-code. The skill file is placed at ~/.claude/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.md.
What does multi-reviewer-patterns do?
It coordinates code reviews across several dimensions, deduplicates overlapping findings, and calibrates severity. The results can be assembled into a consolidated review report.
Which platforms support multi-reviewer-patterns?
The skill is available for Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor. Codex uses npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill multi-reviewer-patterns -a codex, while Cursor uses npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill multi-reviewer-patterns -a cursor.
Source text
SKILL.md · MIT
---
name: multi-reviewer-patterns
description: Coordinate parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions with finding deduplication, severity calibration, and consolidated reporting. Use this skill when organizing multi-reviewer code reviews, calibrating finding severity, or consolidating review results.
version: 1.0.2
---
# Multi-Reviewer Patterns
Patterns for coordinating parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions, deduplicating findings, calibrating severity, and producing consolidated reports.
## When to Use This Skill
- Organizing a multi-dimensional code review
- Deciding which review dimensions to assign
- Deduplicating findings from multiple reviewers
- Calibrating severity ratings consistently
- Producing a consolidated review report
## Review Dimension Allocation
### Available Dimensions
| Dimension | Focus | When to Include |
| ----------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |
| **Security** | Vulnerabilities, auth, input validation | Always for code handling user input or auth |
| **Performance** | Query efficiency, memory, caching | When changing data access or hot paths |
| **Architecture** | SOLID, coupling, patterns | For structural changes or new modules |
| **Testing** | Coverage, quality, edge cases | When adding new functionality |
| **Accessibility** | WCAG, ARIA, keyboard nav | For UI/frontend changes |
### Recommended Combinations
| Scenario | Dimensions |
| ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
| API endpoint changes | Security, Performance, Architecture |
| Frontend component | Architecture, Testing, Accessibility |
| Database migration | Performance, Architecture |
| Authentication changes | Security, Testing |
| Full feature review | Security, Performance, Architecture, Testing |
## Finding Deduplication
When multiple reviewers report issues at the same location:
### Merge Rules
1. **Same file:line, same issue** — Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers
2. **Same file:line, different issues** — Keep as separate findings
3. **Same issue, different locations** — Keep separate but cross-reference
4. **Conflicting severity** — Use the higher severity rating
5. **Conflicting recommendations** — Include both with reviewer attribution
### Deduplication Process
```
For each finding in all reviewer reports:
1. Check if another finding references the same file:line
2. If yes, check if they describe the same issue
3. If same issue: merge, keeping the more detailed description
4. If different issue: keep both, tag as "co-located"
5. Use highest severity among merged findings
```
## Severity Calibration
### Severity Criteria
| Severity | Impact | Likelihood | Examples |
| ------------ | --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
| **Critical** | Data loss, security breach, complete failure | Certain or very likely | SQL injection, auth bypass, data corruption |
| **High** | Significant functionality impact, degradation | Likely | Memory leak, missing validation, broken flow |
| **Medium** | Partial impact, workaround exists | Possible | N+1 query, missing edge case, unclear error |
| **Low** | Minimal impact, cosmetic | Unlikely | Style issue, minor optimization, naming |
### Calibration Rules
- Security vulnerabilities exploitable by external users: always Critical or High
- Performance issues in hot paths: at least Medium
- Missing tests for critical paths: at least Medium
- Accessibility violations for core functionality: at least Medium
- Code style issues with no functional impact: Low
## Consolidated Report Template
```markdown
## Code Review Report
**Target**: {files/PR/directory}
**Reviewers**: {dimension-1}, {dimension-2}, {dimension-3}
**Date**: {date}
**Files Reviewed**: {count}
### Critical Findings ({count})
#### [CR-001] {Title}
**Location**: `{file}:{line}`
**Dimension**: {Security/Performance/etc.}
**Description**: {what was found}
**Impact**: {what could happen}
**Fix**: {recommended remediation}
### High Findings ({count})
...
### Medium Findings ({count})
...
### Low Findings ({count})
...
### Summary
| Dimension | Critical | High | Medium | Low | Total |
| ------------ | -------- | ----- | ------ | ----- | ------ |
| Security | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
| Performance | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 |
| Architecture | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| **Total** | **1** | **3** | **9** | **5** | **18** |
### Recommendation
{Overall assessment and prioritized action items}
```
© Seth Hobson · MIT · wshobson/agents