Tier review
Skill kangig94/coral/clients/skills/init-project/templates/skills/tier-review
Use after implementation to run tier-classified review agents and produce a consolidated verdict.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add kangig94/coral --skill tier-reviewAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 11 stars11 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
4.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Review Gate
Run project review agents by tier taxonomy, consolidate findings, issue a verdict.
<Review_Protocol> <Role> You are the review gate executor. Discover which project agents exist, match them to the review scope, spawn by tier, and consolidate into a single verdict. </Role> <Protocol> All paths below are relative to the user's project root (working directory), not the plugin.
## Phase 1 — Discover Agents
1. Read the project's `.claude/rules/agents.md` for the Quick Reference table (agent, tier, purpose)
and the Consultation Matrix (task category → agent mapping), and add coral:architect to the list of agents with tier 1 by default.
2. If agents.md not found, read `.claude/agents/*.md` — look for tier in description
or Situation table. If tier is unclear, treat safety-related agents as tier 1,
domain-specific as tier 2, quality reviewers as tier 3.
3. If no agents found at all → report "no review agents configured" and exit.
## Phase 2 — Plan
1. Determine review scope from conversation context:
- Explicit argument → use it
- Recent implementation in conversation → those files
- Neither → fall back to git diff (staged + unstaged)
2. For each agent, check against the scope:
- Consultation Matrix: is this task category → agent mapping MANDATORY?
- Agent's Situation/Priority table: does the scope match?
3. Build an invocation table — for each agent: INVOKE (with scope + focus) or SKIP (with reason)
- If all agents are SKIP → report "no agents relevant to this scope" and exit.
4. Report the table before executing.
## Phase 3 — Execute
Spawn only agents marked INVOKE in the table.
For each agent, pass: "Review [scope files] focusing on [focus from plan]."
**Every spawn prompt MUST end with this shared-worktree guard** — reviewers run in parallel in the same working tree, so one stray git command reverts every sibling's work:
> ⚠️ Review is read-only. NEVER run `git checkout`, `git switch`, `git stash`, `git reset`, `git restore`, or `git clean`, and never stage or commit — you share this working tree with parallel reviewers. To inspect another revision, use `git diff <ref>`, `git show <ref>:<path>`, or `git log <ref>` — never check it out.
**Default**: spawn ALL INVOKE agents in parallel, wait for all.
**With `--gated`** (cost-saving short-circuit — use when API budget is tight):
1. Tier 1 (safety) — spawn in parallel, wait for all to complete
- If ANY returns BLOCKING findings → output REJECT verdict, STOP here
2. Tier 2 (domain) + tier 3 (quality) — spawn in parallel, wait for all to complete
## Phase 4 — Consolidate
Apply merge rules to all agent results:
1. **Verdict mapping**: agent PASS → no BLOCKING; agent NEEDS WORK → STRONG findings
2. **Dedup**: same file:line from multiple agents → single entry, list all agents
3. **Severity**: agents disagree → use higher severity
4. **Convergent signals**: same file flagged by multiple agents → elevate priority
5. **Root cause**: tier 1 finding that explains tier 3 symptom → connect and elevate
Issue final verdict:
| Condition | Verdict |
|-----------|---------|
| Any BLOCKING finding | REJECT |
| Multiple unresolved STRONG findings | NEEDS WORK |
| No BLOCKING, 1-2 STRONG items remaining | APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS |
| No BLOCKING, no unresolved STRONG | APPROVED |
| No BLOCKING, no STRONG, all agents report high quality | EXCEPTIONAL |
</Protocol>
<Output_Format>
## Review: [scope]
| Tier | Agent | Status | Verdict | Key Findings |
|------|-------|--------|---------|--------------|
| {1/2/3} | {agent} | INVOKED/SKIPPED | PASS/FAIL/- | {summary or skip reason} |
### Strengths
- {Positive observations from agents with file:line evidence}
### Consolidated Findings
| # | Severity | Agent(s) | Location | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|----------|----------|----------|---------|------------|
| 1 | BLOCKING/STRONG/MINOR | {sources} | file:line | {issue} | {fix} |
### Verdict: [EXCEPTIONAL / APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS / NEEDS WORK / REJECT]
{justification}
</Output_Format> </Review_Protocol>