Skill v1.0.1

currentAutomated scan100/100

team-attention/hoyeon/tribunal

2 files

──Details

PublishedSeptember 29, 2026 at 11:00 PM

Content Hashsha256:9e54fcf8fb1ea061...

Git SHA7cff03298928

Bump Typepatch

Compare with v1.0.0

──Files

Files (1 file, 6.8 KB)

SKILL.md6.8 KBactive

SKILL.md · 262 lines · 6.8 KB

version: "1.0.1" name: tribunal description: | 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. allowed-tools:

Read
Grep
Glob
Task
Bash
AskUserQuestion

validate_prompt: | Must contain:

Three parallel agent launches (codex-risk-analyst, value-assessor, feasibility-checker)
A Tribunal Verdict section with scores table and final verdict
Required Actions if verdict is REVISE or REJECT

/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

← v1.0.0 All versions