Multi Reviewer Patterns

When to use this skill

Use Multi Reviewer Patterns when an AI agent needs a reusable SKILL.md workflow for this job: 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.

When not to use it

Skip Multi Reviewer Patterns when the task is outside the coding category, or when a more specific skill in this directory already covers the same workflow with clearer triggers.

How to install

1. Personal install: create ~/.claude/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/SKILL.md (and any bundled scripts) so Claude Code, Claude Desktop, and compatible agents can load it in every project.
2. Project install: commit the same folder at .claude/skills/multi-reviewer-patterns/ so teammates get the skill with the repo.
3. Restart the agent session after copying files so it re-scans the skills directory, then ask for the task in words that match the skill description.

Full install guide for Claude, Cursor, and Codex

What this skill does

# 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} ```

Intended uses

• 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