PaperclipOrg
Claude Agent Skill · by Wshobson

Multi Reviewer Patterns

When you need multiple people reviewing code from different angles (security, performance, architecture), this coordinates the whole process and prevents chaos.

Install
Terminal · npx
$npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill multi-reviewer-patterns
Works with Paperclip

How Multi Reviewer Patterns fits into a Paperclip company.

Multi Reviewer Patterns drops into any Paperclip agent that handles this kind of work. Assign it to a specialist inside a pre-configured PaperclipOrg company and the skill becomes available on every heartbeat — no prompt engineering, no tool wiring.

S
SaaS FactoryPaired

Pre-configured AI company — 18 agents, 18 skills, one-time purchase.

$27$59
Explore pack
Source file
SKILL.md127 lines
Expand
---name: multi-reviewer-patternsdescription: 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 reviewers2. **Same file:line, different issues** — Keep as separate findings3. **Same issue, different locations** — Keep separate but cross-reference4. **Conflicting severity** — Use the higher severity rating5. **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}```