Multi Reviewer Patterns
Seth HobsonCommunityCreated by Seth Hobson
- Skill
- Guidelines
- Software development
- MIT
- No issues found
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
Multi-Reviewer Patterns provides a systematic approach to managing complex code reviews where multiple reviewers assess different quality dimensions simultaneously. It offers a standardized process for allocating review focus, deduplicating findings across reports, calibrating severity levels, and generating a consolidated final report. By using predefined dimensions—such as Security, Performance, Architecture, Testing, and Accessibility—teams can ensure comprehensive coverage while maintaining consistency in how issues are identified, ranked, and communicated.
What it does
- Defines specific review dimensions and their appropriate use cases.
- Provides rules for merging and deduplicating findings from multiple reviewers.
- Establishes a severity calibration framework to ensure consistent impact assessment.
- Offers a structured template for creating consolidated code review reports.
- Includes detailed checklists for security, performance, architecture, testing, and accessibility.
When to use it
- When conducting complex code reviews that require multiple areas of expertise.
- When you need to reconcile conflicting feedback from different reviewers.
- When you need to standardize severity ratings across a team.
- When preparing a final, consolidated report for a large pull request or structural change.
Advantages
- Reduces noise by deduplicating findings from multiple sources.
- Ensures consistent severity assessment across different reviewers.
- Provides clear, actionable guidance for various quality dimensions.
- Facilitates professional and organized communication of review results.
Usage examples
- “I have three reviewers looking at an API change. How should I combine their findings?”
- The skill provides a deduplication process to merge findings by file and line, resolve conflicting severities by taking the higher rating, and include all reviewer attributions.
- “How do I decide which review dimensions to apply to a database migration?”
- The skill recommends focusing on Performance and Architecture dimensions for database migrations, providing specific checklists for each.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/wshobson/multi-reviewer-patterns/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip multi-reviewer-patterns.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Seth Hobson
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
Same file:line, same issue — Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers
Same file:line, different issues — Keep as separate findings
Same issue, different locations — Keep separate but cross-reference
Conflicting severity — Use the higher severity rating
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 findingsSeverity 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
## 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}Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer991 B
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer1.0 KiB
- SKILL.md5.1 KiB
- references/review-dimensions.md4.0 KiB
SKILL.md
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
Same file:line, same issue — Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers
Same file:line, different issues — Keep as separate findings
Same issue, different locations — Keep separate but cross-reference
Conflicting severity — Use the higher severity rating
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 findingsSeverity 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
## 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}Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Security
No issues found by our static scan· No issues found
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Created by
- Seth Hobson
- Publisher
- Seth Hobson (Community)
- Source
- wshobson/agents · plugins/agent-teams/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns · commit 4bde316
- Licence
- MIT License (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Seth Hobson.
Related skills
Pr
Matt Pocock· Community
A standardized template and set of best practices for writing clear, evidence-based pull request descriptions.
Software developmentClaude CodeClaude appsOpenAI Codex+14 moreMITGitHub stars of the source repository317.5k
Retro
Matt Pocock· Community
Conduct a structured retrospective on coding sessions to improve agent environment and performance.
Software developmentClaude CodeClaude appsOpenAI Codex+14 moreMITGitHub stars of the source repository317.5k
Triage
Matt Pocock· Community
A systematic workflow for managing, verifying, and preparing project issues and pull requests for agent-led implementation.
Software developmentClaude CodeClaude appsOpenAI Codex+14 moreMITGitHub stars of the source repository317.5k
Code Review
Matt Pocock· Community
Performs a dual-axis code review by comparing changes against project standards and functional specifications in parallel.
Software developmentClaude CodeClaude appsOpenAI Codex+14 moreMITGitHub stars of the source repository317.5k
Requesting Code Review
Jesse Vincent (obra)· Community
A structured workflow for dispatching an AI subagent to perform automated code reviews on specific git commits.
Software developmentClaude CodeClaude appsOpenAI Codex+14 moreMITGitHub stars of the source repository314k
Code Simplification
Addy Osmani· Community
A systematic, model-agnostic process for refactoring code to improve readability and maintainability without altering existing behavior.
Software developmentClaude CodeClaude appsOpenAI Codex+14 moreMITGitHub stars of the source repository113.9k
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download multi-reviewer-patterns.zip