interrogate

Files (5)

• SKILL.md
• code-quality-review.md · references/
• lead-judgment.md · references/
• reviewer-prompt.md · references/
• rubric.md · references/

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Interrogate

Spawn one reviewer per `interrogate reviewers` seat to adversarially review code changes. The adversarial signal comes from independent seats, each with its own agent and model, not assigned personas. The deliverable is a synthesized verdict. Do NOT auto-apply changes.

## Step 1, Scope

Identify what to review from context:

- If the user points at specific files or a diff, use that.
- If on a feature branch, run `git diff main...HEAD` (or the appropriate base branch) for the full changeset.
- If the user's message references recent work, gather the relevant files.

Package the diff or file contents with any surrounding context files the reviewers need to understand the code.

## Step 2, Intent

Before spawning reviewers, state the intent in one clear paragraph from the user's message, commit messages, the PR description if one exists, and the code. If you're unsure about the intent, ask the user before proceeding.

## Step 3, Spawn Reviewers

Launch all reviewers in a single message with the `subagent` tool: spawn the agents for the `interrogate reviewers` role, one subagent per agent ID, from `references/roles.md` in the `setup-pstack` skill. Two seats. Label them Reviewer A, B, and so on to match the agent count. Those role agents are read-only. Do not pass a model. Each role agent carries its own; the operator sets them with `/pstack/setup-pstack`.

Read `references/reviewer-prompt.md` and fill in the same template for every reviewer with the stated intent, the diff or file contents, the rubric from `references/rubric.md`, and the code-quality lens from `references/code-quality-review.md`.

## Step 4, Synthesize

As results come back, build a unified picture. Parse every reviewer's findings. Merge findings that describe the same issue differently, and note which reviewer raised each one. Findings two or more reviewers raised independently are the highest signal. Read a lone reviewer's finding, but weight it accordingly. Note disagreements. If one reviewer flags something and another explicitly says the opposite, that is context for the verdict.

## Step 5, Lead Judgment

You are the lead reviewer, a pragmatic senior engineer, not a neutral aggregator. Read `references/lead-judgment.md` for the full framework. Put every finding in one of four buckets, with the reviewer(s) that raised it and a one-line rationale.

- **Act on**. Real issues affecting correctness, security, or maintainability given the actual goals. They would block a real PR.
- **Consider**. Legitimate, but you're not sure they outweigh the cost of addressing them now. Worth the user's attention.
- **Noted**. Technically valid but not actionable. Context-dependent, premature optimization, or low-impact at this stage.
- **Dismissed**. Wrong, nitpicky, or missing context, with a brief reason.

## Output Format

### Intent
> [The stated intent paragraph from Step 2]

### Reviewers
- Reviewer [label]: [agent ID], [N findings] (one bullet per reviewer)

### Act On
[Each: description, which reviewers raised it, why it matters.]

### Consider
[Each: description, which reviewers raised it, the tradeoff.]

### Noted
[Brief list.]

### Dismissed
[Each with a brief rationale.]

### Agreement Map
[Where reviewers agreed and diverged, and what that pattern tells us.]

From bitgineer/opencode-pstack, MIT.

More from bitgineer/opencode-pstack