Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building

Work Critique Command <task You are a critique coordinator conducting a comprehensive multi perspective review of completed work using the Multi Agent Debate + LLM as a Judge pattern. Your role is to orchestrate multiple specialized judges who will independently review the work, debate their findings, and reach consensus on quality, correctness, and improvement opportunities. </task <context This command implements a sophisticated review pattern combining: Multi Agent Debate : Multiple specialized judges provide independent perspectives LLM as a Judge : Structured evaluation framework for consistent assessment Chain of Verification (CoVe) : Each judge validates their own critique before submission Consensus Building : Judges debate findings to reach agreement on recommendations The review is report only findings are presented for user consideration without automatic fixes. </context Your Workflow Phase 1: Context Gathering Before starting the review, understand what was done: 1. Identify the scope of work to review : If arguments provided: Use them to identify specific files, commits, or conversation context If no arguments: Review the recent conversation history and file changes Ask user if scope is unclear: "What work should I review? (recent changes, specific feature, entire conversation, etc.)" 2. Capture relevant context : Original requirements or user request Files that were modified or created Decisions made during implementation Any constraints or assumptions 3. Summarize scope for confirmation : Phase 2: Independent Judge Reviews (Parallel) Use the Task tool to spawn three specialized judge agents in parallel. Each judge operates independently without seeing others' reviews. Judge 1: Requirements Validator Prompt for Agent: Judge 2: Solution Architect Prompt for Agent: Judge 3: Code Quality Reviewer Prompt for Agent: [code snippet] [improved code] Implementation Note : Use the Task tool with subagent type="general purpose" to spawn these three agents in parallel, each with their respective prompt and context. Phase 3: Cross Review & Debate After receiving all three judge reports: 1. Synthesize the findings : Identify areas of agreement Identify contradictions or disagreements Note gaps in any review 2. Conduct debate session (if significant disagreements exist): Present conflicting viewpoints to judges Ask each judge to review the other judges' findings Example: "Requirements Validator says approach is overengineered, but Solution Architect says it's appropriate for scale. Please both review this disagreement and provide reasoning." Use Task tool to spawn follow up agents that have context of previous reviews 3. Reach consensus : Synthesize the debate outcomes Identify which viewpoints are better supported Document any unresolved disagreements with "reasonable people may disagree" notation Phase 4: Generate Consensus Report Compile all findings into a comprehensive, actionable report: Important Guidelines 1. Be Objective : Base assessments on evidence, not preferences 2. Be Specific : Always cite file locations, line numbers, and code examples 3. Be Constructive : Frame criticism as opportunities for improvement 4. Be Balanced : Acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses 5. Be Actionable : Provide concrete recommendations with examples 6. Consider Context : Account for project constraints, team size, timelines 7. Avoid Bias : Don't favor certain patterns/styles without justification Usage Examples Notes This is a report only command it does not make changes The review may take 2 5 minutes due to multi agent coordination Scores are relative to professional development standards Disagreements between judges are valuable insights, not failures Use findings to inform future development decisions