Skill: leegitw/review-orchestrator (version 1.5.1)

--- name: review-orchestrator version: 1.5.0 description: Get multiple perspectives on your work — coordinate reviews across cognitive modes author: Live Neon <[REDACTED_SECRET]> homepage: https://github.com/live-neon/skills/tree/main/agentic/review-orchestrator repository: leegitw/review-orchestrator license: MIT tags: [agentic, review, orchestration, multi-perspective, code-review, quality, twin-review, feedback] layer: review status: active alias: ro metadata: openclaw: requires: config: - .openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml - .claude/review-orchestrator.yaml workspace: - docs/reviews/ --- # review-orchestrator (審査) Unified skill for selecting review types, spawning multi-perspective and cognitive review agents, and managing quality gates. Consolidates 5 granular skills into a single review system. **Trigger**: レビュー要求 (review requested) **Source skills**: twin-review, cognitive-review, review-selector, staged-quality-gate, prompt-normalizer ## Installation ```bash openclaw install leegitw/review-orchestrator ``` **Dependencies**: - `leegitw/failure-memory` (for context) - `leegitw/context-verifier` (for file verification) ```bash # Install with dependencies openclaw install leegitw/context-verifier openclaw install leegitw/failure-memory openclaw install leegitw/review-orchestrator ``` **Standalone usage**: Review orchestration works independently for multi-perspective reviews. Integration with failure-memory enables automatic observation recording from review findings. **Data handling**: This skill operates within your agent's trust boundary. When triggered, it uses your agent's configured model for multi-perspective review orchestration. No external APIs or third-party services are called. Review results are written to `docs/reviews/` in your workspace. ## What This Solves One perspective has blind spots. This skill coordinates multiple review perspectives to catch what single-pass review misses: 1. **Twin review** — technical and creative perspectives for balance 2. **Cognitive modes** — analyzer ("what conflicts"), architect ("how to restructure"), implementer ("how to implement") **The insight**: N=2 catches more than N=1. Different perspectives see different things. Coordinate them systematically. > **Note**: "Cognitive modes" are review perspectives with different analytical focus, not > external API calls. Mode names (analyzer, architect, implementer) describe the review > approach, not specific AI models or services. ## Usage ``` /ro <sub-command> [arguments] ``` ## Sub-Commands | Command | CJK | Logic | Trigger | |---------|-----|-------|---------| | `/ro select` | 選択 | context×risk→type∈{twin,cognitive,code} | Explicit | | `/ro twin` | 双子 | spawn(technical,creative)→findings[] | Explicit | | `/ro cognitive` | 認知 | spawn(modes[])→analysis[] | Explicit | | `/ro multi` | 双視 | alias for `/ro twin` (multi-perspective review) | Explicit | | `/ro gate` | 門番 | staged_work→pass✓∨block✗ | Explicit | ## Arguments ### /ro select | Argument | Required | Description | |----------|----------|-------------| | context | Yes | Description of work to review | | --risk | No | Risk level: `low`, `medium`, `high` (auto-detected if omitted) | ### /ro twin | Argument | Required | Description | |----------|----------|-------------| | target | Yes | File path(s) or topic to review | | --technical-only | No | Skip creative perspective | | --creative-only | No | Skip technical perspective | ### /ro cognitive | Argument | Required | Description | |----------|----------|-------------| | target | Yes | File path(s) or topic to review | | --modes | No | Cognitive modes: `analyzer`, `architect`, `implementer` (default: all) | ### /ro multi Alias for `/ro twin`. The name "twin" refers to the dual-perspective review pattern (technical + creative), not a specific team structure. `/ro multi` is provided for discoverability by users unfamiliar with the "twin" terminology. ### /ro gate | Argument | Required | Description | |----------|----------|-------------| | stage | Yes | Stage name or number to gate | | --strict | No | Require all checks pass (default: true) | | --allow-minor | No | Allow minor issues to pass | ## Core Logic ### Review Type Selection | Context | Risk | Recommended Review | |---------|------|-------------------| | Implementation | Low | `/ro twin --technical-only` | | Implementation | Medium | `/ro twin` (both perspectives) | | Implementation | High | `/ro twin` + `/ro cognitive` | | Architecture | Any | `/ro cognitive` | | Documentation | Any | `/ro twin --creative-only` | | Security | Any | `/ro cognitive` + external review | ### Multi-Perspective Review | Perspective | Focus | CJK | |-------------|-------|-----| | Technical | Architecture, standards, patterns, security | 技術 | | Creative | UX, communication, philosophy alignment | 創造 | ### Cognitive Modes Cognitive modes provide different analytical perspectives. Modes are configurable; defaults shown below. | Mode | Perspective | Focus | CJK | |------|-------------|-------|-----| | analyzer | "Here's what conflicts" | Tensions, trade-offs, contradictions | 審碼 | | architect | "Here's how to restructure" | Architecture, patterns, organization | 審構 | | implementer | "Here's how to implement" | Concrete steps, complexity, path forward | 審実 | > **Note**: Mode names are perspective-based, not model-specific. The underlying model > used for each mode is configurable (see Configuration section below). ## Configuration Configuration is loaded from (in order of precedence): 1. `.openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml` (OpenClaw standard) 2. `.claude/review-orchestrator.yaml` (Claude Code compatibility) 3. Defaults (built-in) ### Cognitive Mode Interface Each cognitive mode implements this interface: | Field | Type | Required | Description | |-------|------|----------|-------------| | id | string | Yes | Mode identifier (e.g., "analyzer", "architect") | | perspective | string | Yes | Human-readable perspective description | | prompt_prefix | string | Yes | Prompt prefix for this mode's analysis | | model_hint | string | No | Optional model preference (not enforced) | ### Cognitive Mode Configuration ```yaml # .openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml cognitive_modes: - id: analyzer perspective: "Here's what conflicts" prompt_prefix: "Analyze tensions, trade-offs, and conflicts in..." model_hint: "prefer analytical model" - id: architect perspective: "Here's how to restructure" prompt_prefix: "Suggest architectural improvements for..." model_hint: "prefer architectural model" - id: implementer perspective: "Here's how to implement" prompt_prefix: "Provide implementation guidance for..." model_hint: "prefer practical model" ``` ### Quality Gate Configuration ```yaml # .openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml quality_gates: test_command: "npm test" # Node.js (default) # test_command: "go test ./..." # Go # test_command: "pytest" # Python # test_command: "cargo test" # Rust coverage_threshold: 5 # Max allowed coverage drop (%) require_docs: true # Require documentation updates ``` ### Quality Gate Checks | Check | Condition | Severity | |-------|-----------|----------| | Tests pass | `{test_command}` exit 0 | Critical | | Coverage maintained | delta ≤ `{coverage_threshold}`% | Important | | No critical findings | review.critical == 0 | Critical | | Docs updated | changed files have docs (if `require_docs`) | Minor | > Checks use configured values from `quality_gates` section. Defaults: test_command=`npm test`, > coverage_threshold=5, require_docs=true. ## Output ### /ro select output ``` [REVIEW SELECTION] Context: "Refactoring authentication handler" Risk: Medium (auto-detected: changes auth code) Recommended: /ro twin Rationale: Medium-risk implementation benefits from both technical and creative perspectives. Alternative: /ro cognitive (for deeper architectural analysis) ``` ### /ro twin output ``` [MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW INITIATED] Target: src/handlers/auth.go Perspectives: technical, creative --- Technical Perspective Findings --- Severity: important - I-1: Missing error handling on line 45 - I-2: Consider extracting validation logic Severity: minor - M-1: Inconsistent naming convention --- Creative Perspective Findings --- Severity: minor - M-1: Error messages could be more user-friendly - M-2: Consider adding debug logging for operators Verdict: Approved with conditions ``` ### /ro cognitive output ``` [COGNITIVE REVIEW INITIATED] Target: docs/architecture/auth-flow.md Modes: analyzer, architect, implementer --- Analyzer Perspective (Conflicts) --- - Tension between security and usability in token refresh - Trade-off: session duration vs re-auth frequency --- Architect Perspective (Restructure) --- - Suggested: Extract token service from handler - Benefit: Cleaner separation of concerns --- Implementer Perspective (Implement) --- - Implementation path: 3 stages - Estimated complexity: Medium Verdict: Approved ``` ### /ro gate output (pass) ``` [QUALITY GATE: Stage 2] Status: ✓ PASSED Checks: - ✓ Tests pass (exit 0) - ✓ Coverage maintained (delta: -1.2%) - ✓ No critical findings - ✓ Documentation updated Proceed to Stage 3. ``` ### /ro gate output (block) ``` [QUALITY GATE: Stage 2] Status: ✗ BLOCKED Checks: - ✓ Tests pass - ✗ Coverage dropped (delta: -8.3%, threshold: 5%) - ✓ No critical findings - ✗ Documentation not updated Action required before proceeding: 1. Add tests to restore coverage 2. Update docs/handlers/README.md ``` ### Example: API Design Review ``` /ro cognitive api/openapi.yaml --modes analyzer,architect [COGNITIVE REVIEW INITIATED] Target: api/openapi.yaml Modes: analyzer, architect --- Analyzer Perspective (Conflicts) --- - Tension: Versioning strategy (URL vs header) inconsistent across endpoints - Trade-off: Pagination style (cursor vs offset) mixed usage --- Architect Perspective (Restructure) --- - Suggested: Standardize on cursor pagination for large collections - Benefit: Consistent client SDK, better performance at scale Verdict: Approved with conditions ``` ### Example: Performance Review ``` /ro twin src/handlers/search.go --technical-only [MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW INITIATED] Target: src/handlers/search.go Perspectives: technical --- Technical Perspective Findings --- Severity: important - I-1: N+1 query pattern on line 78 (database calls in loop) - I-2: Missing index on search_terms table Severity: minor - M-1: Consider caching frequent searches (>100 req/min) Verdict: Approved with conditions ``` ## Integration - **Layer**: Review - **Depends on**: failure-memory (for context), context-verifier (for file verification) - **Used by**: governance (for constraint reviews) ## Failure Modes | Condition | Behavior | |-----------|----------| | Invalid sub-command | List available sub-commands | | Target not found | Error: "Target not found: {path}" | | Agent spawn failed | Retry once, then report failure | | Gate check failed | Block with specific remediation steps | ## Next Steps After invoking this skill: | Condition | Action | |-----------|--------| | Review complete | Write findings to `docs/reviews/` | | Gate passed | Proceed to next stage | | Gate blocked | Address findings, re-run gate | | Critical findings | Create observation via `/fm record` | ## Workspace Files This skill reads/writes: ``` docs/reviews/ ├── [date]-[topic]-twin-technical.md ├── [date]-[topic]-twin-creative.md ├── [date]-[topic]-cognitive.md └── [date]-[topic]-gate-results.md ``` ## Security Considerations **What this skill accesses:** - Configuration files in `.openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml` and `.claude/review-orchestrator.yaml` - Target files specified by user for review (read-only) - Its own output directory `docs/reviews/` **What this skill does NOT access:** - Files outside declared workspace paths - System environment variables - Network resources or external APIs - Other tools' configuration **What this skill does NOT do:** - Invoke AI models directly (instruction-only skill) - Call external services (Codex, Gemini, or any third-party API) - Send data to external services - Modify files outside its workspace (only writes to `docs/reviews/`) - Execute arbitrary code **Cognitive modes clarification:** Mode names like "analyzer", "architect", and "implementer" describe review perspectives (analytical approaches), NOT external AI services. The skill provides prompts and structure; your agent executes the review using its configured model. **Configuration files:** The config files (`.openclaw/review-orchestrator.yaml` and `.claude/review-orchestrator.yaml`) contain only local behavior settings (cognitive mode definitions, quality gate thresholds). They do NOT contain API keys, tokens, or external service endpoints by design. **Dependency clarification:** References to `failure-memory` and `context-verifier` are skill-level dependencies installed via `openclaw install`. These are separate instruction-only skills with their own declared permissions — this skill does not grant them additional access or inherit their permissions. **Provenance note:** This skill is developed by Live Neon (https://github.com/live-neon/skills) and published to ClawHub under the `leegitw` account. Both refer to the same maintainer. ## Acceptance Criteria - [ ] `/ro select` recommends appropriate review type based on context and risk - [ ] `/ro twin` (or `/ro multi`) spawns both technical and creative perspectives - [ ] `/ro twin` aggregates findings from both perspectives - [ ] `/ro cognitive` spawns configured cognitive modes (default: analyzer, architect, implementer) - [ ] `/ro cognitive` presents different perspectives clearly - [ ] `/ro gate` checks all configured quality criteria - [ ] `/ro gate` blocks on critical failures - [ ] `/ro gate` provides clear remediation guidance - [ ] Review findings written to workspace files - [ ] Configuration loaded from `.openclaw/` or `.claude/` paths --- *Consolidated from 5 skills as part of agentic skills consolidation (2026-02-15).*


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)