Multi-agent context review: delegates plans, decisions, documents, architecture proposals to external agents (Codex + Gemini) for independent review with debate protocol. Works in Plan Mode.
Scanned 9/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add boisenoise/skills-collections --skill levn-ln-005-multi-agent-context-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Levn Ln 005 Multi Agent Context Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/boisenoise-levn-ln-005-multi-agent-context-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ln-005-multi-agent-context-review
description: "Multi-agent context review: delegates plans, decisions, documents, architecture proposals to external agents (Codex + Gemini) for independent review with debate protocol. Works in Plan Mode."
license: MIT
---
> **Paths:** File paths (`shared/`, `references/`, `../ln-*`) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root.
# Multi-Agent Context Review (Universal)
Runs parallel external agent reviews on arbitrary context, critically verifies suggestions, returns filtered improvements.
## Purpose & Scope
- Standalone utility in 0XX category (like ln-003, ln-004)
- Delegate any context to codex-review + gemini-review as background tasks in parallel
- Context always passed via file references (never inline in prompt)
- Process results as they arrive (first-finished agent processed immediately)
- Critically verify each suggestion; debate with agent if Claude disagrees
- Return filtered, deduplicated, verified suggestions
## When to Use
- Manual invocation by user for independent review of any artifact
- Called by any skill needing external second opinion on plans, decisions, documents
- NOT tied to Linear, NOT tied to any pipeline
- Works with any context that can be saved to a file
## Plan Mode Support
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `shared/references/plan_mode_pattern.md` (Workflow B). Step 7e (Compare & Correct): output findings to chat, apply edits only after user approval.
## Parameters
| Parameter | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| `review_type` | `contextreview` |
| `skill_group` | `005` |
| `prompt_template` | `shared/agents/prompt_templates/context_review.md` |
| `verdict_acceptable` | `CONTEXT_ACCEPTABLE` |
## Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| `context_files` | Yes | List of file paths containing context to review (relative to CWD) |
| `identifier` | No | Short label for file naming (default: `review_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS`) |
| `focus` | No | List of areas to focus on (default: all 6) |
| `review_title` | No | Human-readable title (default: `"Context Review"`) |
| `tech_stack` | No | Technology stack override (e.g., `"Python FastAPI"`, `"C# ASP.NET Core"`). Auto-detected if not provided. |
**Context delivery rule:** Context is ALWAYS passed via files.
- If context already exists as files (plans, docs, code) -> pass file paths directly
- If context is a statement/decision from chat -> caller creates a temporary file in `.agent-review/context/` with the content, then passes the file path
## Workflow
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `shared/references/agent_review_workflow.md` for Health Check, Ensure .agent-review/, Load Review Memory, Run Agents, Critical Verification + Debate, Aggregate + Return, Save Review Summary, Fallback Rules, Critical Rules, and Definition of Done. Load `shared/references/agent_delegation_pattern.md` for Reference Passing Pattern, Review Persistence Pattern, Agent Timeout Policy, and Debate Protocol.
### Unique Steps (before shared workflow)
1) **Health check:** per shared workflow, filter by `skill_group` = `005`.
2) **Resolve identifier:** If `identifier` not provided, generate `review_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS`. Sanitize: lowercase, replace spaces with hyphens, ASCII only.
3) **Ensure .agent-review/:** per shared workflow. Additionally create `.agent-review/context/` subdir if it doesn't exist (for materialized context files).
4) **Materialize context (if needed):** If context is from chat/conversation (not an existing file):
- Write content to `.agent-review/context/{identifier}_context.md`
- Add this path to `context_files` list
5) **Build prompt:** Read template `shared/agents/prompt_templates/context_review.md`.
- Replace `{review_title}` with title or `"Context Review"`
- Replace `{context_refs}` with bullet list: `- {path}` per context file
- Replace `{focus_areas}` with filtered subset or `"All default areas"` if no focus specified
- Save to `.agent-review/{identifier}_contextreview_prompt.md` (single shared file -- both agents read the same prompt)
### Shared Workflow Steps
6) **Launch Agents (background) — MANDATORY: before any foreground research:**
Per shared workflow "Step: Run Agents". Prompt file is ready (step 5). Launch BOTH agents as background tasks NOW.
- `{review_type}` in challenge template = review_title or "Context Review"
- `{story_ref}` in challenge template = identifier
7) **Foreground Research (while agents are running in background):**
Agents are already thinking. Use this time for Review Memory + MCP Ref research.
```
Agents (background) Claude (foreground)
codex-review ──┐ 7a) Load Review Memory
gemini-review ─┤ 7b) Applicability Check
│ 7c) Stack Detection
│ 7d) Extract Topics
│ 7e) MCP Ref Research
│ 7f) Compare & Correct
├── first completes ──→ 7g) Save Findings
└── second completes 8) Critical Verification (informed by memory + findings)
```
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `shared/references/research_tool_fallback.md`
#### 7a) Load Review Memory
Per shared workflow "Step: Load Review Memory". Not passed to agents — used only in step 8 (Critical Verification).
#### 7b) Applicability Check
Scan `context_files` for technology decision signals (skip 7c-7e if no signals found):
| Signal Type | Weight | Examples |
|-------------|--------|---------|
| Infrastructure choice | 5 | Redis, PostgreSQL, K8s, Docker, RabbitMQ |
| API/protocol decision | 4 | REST vs GraphQL, WebSocket, gRPC, OAuth 2.0 |
| Security mechanism | 4 | JWT, PKCE, CORS, rate limiting, OWASP |
| Library/framework choice | 3 | FastAPI, Polly, SQLAlchemy, Pydantic |
| Architectural pattern | 3 | CQRS, event sourcing, middleware chain, DI |
| Configuration/tooling | 1 | ESLint, Prettier, CI config |
- No signals found → skip MCP Ref research, log `"MCP Ref skipped: no technology decisions detected"`
- Fewer than 3 topics with weight >= 3 → skip
#### 7c) Stack Detection
Priority order:
1. `tech_stack` input parameter → use directly as `query_prefix`
2. `docs/tools_config.md` Research section → extract stack hints
3. Glob for indicator files:
| Indicator | Stack | Query Prefix |
|-----------|-------|--------------|
| `*.csproj`, `*.sln` | .NET | `"C# ASP.NET Core"` |
| `package.json` + `tsconfig.json` | Node.js | `"TypeScript Node.js"` |
| `requirements.txt`, `pyproject.toml` | Python | `"Python"` |
| `go.mod` | Go | `"Go Golang"` |
| `Cargo.toml` | Rust | `"Rust"` |
| `build.gradle`, `pom.xml` | Java | `"Java"` |
4. Parse context_files for technology mentions (fallback heuristic)
Output: `detected_stack = {query_prefix}` or empty (generic queries)
#### 7d) Extract Topics (3-5)
- Parse all context_files for technology decisions
- Score each by weight from 7b table
- Take top 3-5 with weight >= 3
- Format: `{topic_name, plan_statement, file_path, line_ref}`
#### 7e) MCP Ref Research
Research chain (per `research_tool_fallback.md`, loaded above): Ref -> Context7 -> WebSearch -> built-in knowledge.
For each topic:
- Query: `"{query_prefix} {topic} RFC standard best practices {current_year}"`
- Collect: `{official_position, source, matches_plan: bool}`
- Run queries in parallel where possible
#### 7f) Compare & Correct
For each topic where `matches_plan == false` (high confidence):
- Apply surgical Edit to plan file (single-line or minimal multi-line change)
- Add inline rationale: `"(per {RFC/standard}: ...)"`
- Record correction in findings
For each topic where finding is ambiguous:
- Record as `"REVIEW NEEDED"` (not auto-corrected)
`IF Plan Mode -> corrections applied to plan-mode file directly.`
**Safety rules:**
- Max 5 corrections per run
- Each correction must cite specific RFC/standard/doc
- Only correct when official docs directly contradict plan statement
#### 7g) Save Findings
Write to `.agent-review/context/{identifier}_mcp_ref_findings.md` (per `references/mcp_ref_findings_template.md`).
`IF Plan Mode -> output findings to chat, skip file write.`
Display: `"MCP Ref: {N} topics validated, {M} corrections, {K} confirmed"`
---
8) **Critical Verification + Debate:** per shared workflow, with MCP Ref enhancement:
- If MCP Ref research completed (7b-7g), use findings to inform AGREE/DISAGREE decisions
- Agent suggestion contradicts MCP Ref finding → DISAGREE with RFC/standard citation
- Agent suggestion aligns with MCP Ref finding → AGREE with higher confidence
- Agent suggests something MCP Ref didn't cover → standard verification (no enhancement)
9) **Aggregate + Return:** per shared workflow. Merge agent suggestions + MCP Ref corrections into unified output.
10) **Save Review Summary:** per shared workflow "Step: Save Review Summary". `IF Plan Mode → output to chat, skip file save.`
## Output Format
```yaml
verdict: CONTEXT_ACCEPTABLE | SUGGESTIONS | SKIPPED
mcp_ref_corrections:
count: 2
topics_validated: 5
corrections:
- topic: "OAuth 2.0"
file: "plan.md"
line: 42
before: "Use implicit flow"
after: "Use Authorization Code + PKCE (RFC 6749)"
source: "ref_search_documentation"
findings_file: ".agent-review/context/{identifier}_mcp_ref_findings.md"
suggestions:
- area: "logic | feasibility | completeness | consistency | best_practices | risk"
issue: "What is wrong or could be improved"
suggestion: "Specific actionable change"
confidence: 95
impact_percent: 15
source: "codex-review"
resolution: "accepted | accepted_after_debate | accepted_after_followup | rejected"
```
- `mcp_ref_corrections`: present only when MCP Ref research ran. Omitted when skipped.
- Agent stats and debate log per shared workflow output schema.
## Verdict Escalation
- **No escalation.** Suggestions are advisory only.
- Caller decides how to apply accepted suggestions.
## Reference Files
- **Shared workflow:** `shared/references/agent_review_workflow.md`
- **Agent delegation pattern:** `shared/references/agent_delegation_pattern.md`
- **Prompt template (review):** `shared/agents/prompt_templates/context_review.md`
- **Review schema:** `shared/agents/schemas/context_review_schema.json`
- **Research fallback:** `shared/references/research_tool_fallback.md`
- **MCP Ref findings template:** `references/mcp_ref_findings_template.md`
---
**Version:** 1.1.0
**Last Updated:** 2026-03-06
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!