team-attention/hoyeon/tribunal

Name: tribunal
Author: team-attention

Claude Code and agent skill by team-attention/hoyeon

Trust tier 2

community

Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

This skill should be used when the user says "/tribunal", "tribunal", "review this", "3-way review", "risk-value-feasibility check", or wants multi-perspective adversarial review. Also triggered by: "트리뷰널", "리뷰 해줘", "3관점 리뷰", "위험성 검토". Runs 3 agents (Risk/Value/Feasibility) in parallel and synthesizes a verdict.

Install

npx vskill@latest install team-attention/hoyeon/tribunal

SKILL.md

/tribunal — 3-Perspective Adversarial Review

You are a tribunal orchestrator. You launch 3 review agents with distinct perspectives, then synthesize their findings into a unified verdict.

Architecture

            ┌─ codex-risk-analyst (Codex)  ── "What can go wrong?"
Input ──────┼─ value-assessor (Claude)     ── "What value does this deliver?"
            └─ feasibility-checker (Claude) ── "Can this actually be built?"
                         ↓
               You synthesize all 3
               → APPROVE / REVISE / REJECT

Step 1: Parse Input

Determine the review target from arguments:

Input	How to get content
`file.md` or path	`Read(file_path)`
`--pr <number>`	`Bash("gh pr diff <number>")` and `Bash("gh pr view <number>")`
`--diff`	`Bash("git diff HEAD")` or `Bash("git diff main...HEAD")`
No args	Ask user what to review via `AskUserQuestion`

Collect the full content — all 3 agents need the same input.

If reviewing a PLAN.md, also read the corresponding DRAFT.md (if exists) for context.

Step 2: Launch Tribunal (3 Agents in Parallel)

Launch all 3 agents simultaneously in a single message:

# Risk Analysis (Codex-powered — adversarial)
Task(subagent_type="codex-risk-analyst",
     prompt="""
Review Target: [type - plan/PR/diff/proposal]
 
## Content
[Full content to review]
 
## Context (if available)
[Project structure, related patterns, constraints]
 
Perform adversarial risk analysis. Find everything that could go wrong.
""")
 
# Value Assessment (Claude — constructive)
Task(subagent_type="value-assessor",
     prompt="""
Review Target: [type - plan/PR/diff/proposal]
 
## Content
[Full content to review]
 
## Original Goal
[What was the intent/requirement behind this work]
 
Assess the value this delivers. Be genuinely constructive but honest.
""")
 
# Feasibility Check (Claude — pragmatic)
Task(subagent_type="feasibility-checker",
     prompt="""
Review Target: [type - plan/PR/diff/proposal]
 
## Content
[Full content to review]
 
## Codebase Context
[Relevant patterns, dependencies, test infrastructure]
 
Evaluate practical feasibility. Can this actually be built/merged?
""")

CRITICAL: All 3 in ONE message (parallel). Do NOT run sequentially.

Step 3: Synthesize Verdict

After all 3 agents return, synthesize their findings.

3.1 Extract Ratings

From each report, extract the summary rating:

Risk: BLOCK / CAUTION / CLEAR (from risk analyst)
Value: STRONG / ADEQUATE / WEAK (from value assessor)
Feasibility: GO / CONDITIONAL / NO-GO (from feasibility checker)

3.2 Verdict Matrix

Risk	Value	Feasibility	Verdict
CLEAR	STRONG	GO	APPROVE
CLEAR	ADEQUATE	GO	APPROVE
CAUTION	STRONG	GO	APPROVE (with notes)
CAUTION	ADEQUATE	GO	REVISE
CAUTION	*	CONDITIONAL	REVISE
BLOCK	*	*	REVISE (or REJECT if critical count > 2)
*	WEAK	*	REVISE
*	*	NO-GO	REJECT
BLOCK	WEAK	*	REJECT

Use judgment for combinations not in the matrix.

3.3 Identify Contention Points

Find areas where agents disagree:

Risk says dangerous, but Value says high-impact → worth the risk?
Feasibility says hard, but Value says critical → invest the effort?
Risk says fine, but Feasibility says blocked → hidden dependency?

3.4 Compile Required Actions

From all 3 reports, extract actionable items:

Must fix (from BLOCK risks or NO-GO feasibility)
Should address (from CAUTION risks or CONDITIONAL feasibility)
Nice to have (from missed opportunities in value assessment)

Step 4: Present Tribunal Report

markdown

## Tribunal Verdict
 
### Panel Scores
 
| Dimension | Agent | Rating | Key Finding |
|-----------|-------|--------|-------------|
| Risk | codex-risk-analyst | [BLOCK/CAUTION/CLEAR] | [1-line summary] |
| Value | value-assessor | [STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK] | [1-line summary] |
| Feasibility | feasibility-checker | [GO/CONDITIONAL/NO-GO] | [1-line summary] |
 
### Verdict: [APPROVE / REVISE / REJECT]
 
[1-2 sentence rationale]
 
### Contention Points
[Where agents disagreed and the resolution reasoning]
 
### Required Actions
**Must Fix (before proceeding):**
1.[action from risk/feasibility]
 
**Should Address:**
1.[action]
 
**Consider:**
1.[action from value missed opportunities]
 
### Strengths to Preserve
[Key positives identified by value-assessor that should NOT be lost in revisions]
 
---
 
<details>
<summary>Full Risk Analysis</summary>
 
[Complete risk analyst report]
 
</details>
 
<details>
<summary>Full Value Assessment</summary>
 
[Complete value assessor report]
 
</details>
 
<details>
<summary>Full Feasibility Report</summary>
 
[Complete feasibility checker report]
 
</details>

Step 5: Handle Verdict

After presenting the report:

Verdict	Action
APPROVE	Inform user: "Tribunal approves. Proceed with confidence."
REVISE	Present required actions. Ask user how to proceed.
REJECT	Present blockers clearly. Recommend returning to planning.

For REVISE:

AskUserQuestion(
  question: "Tribunal recommends revisions. How do you want to proceed?",
  options: [
    { label: "Apply fixes", description: "Address the required actions and re-review" },
    { label: "Override — proceed anyway", description: "Acknowledge risks and continue (Disagree & Commit)" },
    { label: "Back to planning", description: "Return to /specify to rethink approach" }
  ]
)

Usage Examples

bash

# Review a plan
/tribunal .hoyeon/specs/auth-feature/PLAN.md
 
# Review a PR
/tribunal --pr 421
 
# Review current uncommitted changes
/tribunal --diff
 
# Review with no args (will ask what to review)
/tribunal

Checklist Before Stopping

[ ] All 3 agents launched in parallel (single message)
[ ] Verdict synthesized with scores table
[ ] Contention points identified (where agents disagreed)
[ ] Required actions listed (if REVISE or REJECT)
[ ] Full reports included in collapsible details
[ ] User action presented based on verdict

Security

Security scanPassed, 100 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
Model reviewPassed

See the full security report

Quality evaluation

Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

See evaluation results

Source

SKILL.md in the repositoryCheckingskills/tribunal/SKILL.md

Popularity

Repository stars: 174
Repository forks: 24
7-day trend score: 26

Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Refreshed 20 Mar 2026, 7 months ago.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

Claude Code
Cursor
GitHub Copilot
Windsurf
Codex
Gemini CLI
Cline
Amp
Roo Code
Goose
Continue
Kilo Code
Junie
Trae
OpenHands
Qwen Code
AI Agent
Tabnine Chat
Sourcegraph Cody
Amazon Q
Firebase Genkit
Sweep
Devin
Phind
Mentat
Claude Desktop
Aider
GPT Pilot
Plandex
bolt.new
v0
Replit Agent
Anse
TypingMind
BetterChatGPT
LibreChat
Warp AI
Pieces
Fig AI

Embed badge

[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/team-attention/hoyeon/tribunal/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/team-attention/hoyeon/tribunal)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.