Convene multiple reviewer agents to analyze a piece, then synthesize their perspectives into a unified analysis that surfaces consensus, tensions, and priorities.
When to Use
- Before publishing something high-stakes
- When you want multiple perspectives without running reviewers manually
- When you suspect different aspects need different kinds of attention
- When you're too close to the work to know what feedback you need
The Flow
1. Load Context
Read ../../references/context-contract.md, the draft, and any available brief, outline, project instructions, feedback, or status metadata to understand:
- piece_type — essay, argument, explainer, narrative, etc.
- audience — general, specialist, insider
- stage — early draft, revision, near-final
- goals — if stated
Infer missing context from the draft and request. Do not require .status.yaml.
2. Propose Panel
Based on piece context, propose 4-6 reviewers.
Selection heuristics:
| Signal | Suggests Including |
|---|---|
| Personal/reflective content | sedaris, mom |
| Argumentative content | nemesis, vonnegut |
| Technical or jargon-heavy | reader, mom, hemingway |
| Narrative structure | vonnegut, hitchcock, sorkin |
| Feels slow or wandering | sorkin |
| Feels bloated | hemingway |
| High-stakes / pre-publish | nemesis, hemingway |
| Cold read, uncertain audience response, or missing setup | reader |
| General audience | reader |
| Non-expert accessibility | mom |
| Early stage | vonnegut (fundamentals) |
| Late stage | hemingway, nemesis (polish, stress-test) |
Check the active writer and project context for:
- Preferred reviewers
- Reviewers to exclude
- Past patterns
Present the proposal:
## Proposed Panel
**Draft:** [title or slug]
**Context:** [piece_type] for [audience], currently at [stage]
Based on this context, I recommend:
| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **[name]** | [One-line rationale tied to piece context] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
**Not including:**
- **[name]** — [Why not relevant for this piece]
- **[name]** — [Why not]
Proceed with this panel, or adjust?
Wait for user confirmation or modification.
3. Run Reviewers in Parallel
Once confirmed:
- Run all selected reviewers in parallel when the active platform supports parallel workers and the user's explicit panel request authorizes them.
- On Claude, use the matching
compound-writing:review:*subagent when available. - On Codex or another runtime, use the matching reviewer skill or an isolated worker with that lens.
- Give each reviewer the draft plus the minimum relevant context.
- Each reviewer returns its standard prose output independently.
- On Claude, use the matching
- Collect all outputs
Example spawning pattern:
[Spawn in parallel:]
- Task: nemesis-reviewer with draft
- Task: mom-reviewer with draft
- Task: hemingway-reviewer with draft
- Task: sorkin-reviewer with draft
4. Run Synthesizer
Use the panel-synthesizer agent when available; otherwise synthesize the outputs directly. Include:
- The draft
- Draft context from the active brief, instructions, metadata, or careful inference
- All reviewer outputs (full prose)
Synthesizer prompt should include:
## Draft
[full draft text]
## Context
piece_type: [from context or inference]
audience: [from context or inference]
stage: [from context or inference]
goals: [from context if present]
## Reviewer Outputs
### nemesis-reviewer
[full output]
### mom-reviewer
[full output]
### hemingway-reviewer
[full output]
[etc.]
5. Return Synthesis
Present the synthesizer's output to the user.
Panel Size
- Minimum: 3 reviewers (fewer than this, just run them individually)
- Recommended: 4-5 reviewers (good coverage without redundancy)
- Maximum: 8 reviewers (all of them—full stress test)
Available Reviewers
| Reviewer | Subagent Type | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| nemesis | compound-writing:review:nemesis-reviewer | Logical rigor, unsupported claims |
| reader | compound-writing:review:reader-reviewer | First-time reading experience, missing setup, trust and friction |
| mom | compound-writing:review:mom-reviewer | Accessibility, jargon, general reader |
| hemingway | compound-writing:review:hemingway-reviewer | Economy, cutting, word-level |
| sedaris | compound-writing:review:sedaris-reviewer | Specificity, humor, voice |
| sorkin | compound-writing:review:sorkin-reviewer | Pacing, momentum, forward motion |
| vonnegut | compound-writing:review:vonnegut-reviewer | Story fundamentals, structure |
| hitchcock | compound-writing:review:hitchcock-reviewer | Tension, suspense, stakes |
Default Panels by Piece Type
If the active context names a piece type, use it as a starting point:
| piece_type | Default Panel |
|---|---|
essay / personal |
reader, sedaris, vonnegut, sorkin |
argument / opinion |
nemesis, vonnegut, hemingway, reader |
explainer / technical |
reader, mom, hemingway, sorkin |
narrative / story |
vonnegut, hitchcock, sorkin, sedaris |
newsletter |
reader, sorkin, hemingway |
Always adjust based on specific signals in the draft.
Example Session
User: /cw-panel
Agent: I'll convene a panel to review your draft. Let me read it and check the status.
[Reads draft]
[Loads the brief and project context: personal essay, general audience,
revision stage, goal: "make it land emotionally without being sappy"]
## Proposed Panel
**Draft:** father-and-the-sea
**Context:** essay for general audience, revision stage
Based on the context—personal essay aiming for emotional impact without
sentimentality—I recommend:
| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **mom** | General audience check. Will flag where you lose non-insiders. |
| **sedaris** | Personal material that might benefit from more specificity or humor. |
| **sorkin** | Revision stage—check if pacing is tight. |
| **nemesis** | The emotional claims need to be earned, not asserted. |
**Not including:**
- **hemingway** — The prose reads clean; economy isn't the issue here
- **hitchcock** — Not a tension-driven piece
- **vonnegut** — Structure is solid; this needs polish not fundamentals
Proceed with this panel, or adjust?
User: Add hemingway actually, I think it might be overwritten
Agent: Adding hemingway. Running the panel now.
[Spawns 5 reviewer agents in parallel]
[Collects outputs]
[Spawns panel-synthesizer with draft + context + all outputs]
## Panel Synthesis
**Panel:** nemesis, hemingway, mom, sedaris, sorkin
**Piece context:** essay for general audience, revision stage, goal: emotional
impact without sappiness
---
### Consensus Findings
| Issue | Flagged By | Recommendation |
|-------|------------|----------------|
| Opening two paragraphs are slow | sorkin, hemingway, nemesis | Cut or restructure—start closer to the boat |
| "He taught me everything" is unearned | nemesis, sedaris | Show what he taught, don't declare it |
| Section 3 gets abstract | mom, sorkin | Ground it in a specific moment |
---
### Productive Tensions
**Tension: The fishing gear paragraph**
> "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s, a reel
> that hadn't worked since Reagan, hooks that had never caught anything but
> his own thumb."
| Cut it | Keep it |
|--------|---------|
| **hemingway:** 47 words that could be 15. "His tackle box held decades of failure" does the job. | **sedaris:** This is the most alive moment in the piece. The specific details are doing real work. |
**What's at stake:** The piece aims for emotional impact without sappiness.
Specific, wry details (sedaris) might be the path there. But if they slow
momentum, they work against the goal.
---
### Unique Insights
- **sedaris:** "There's a joke hiding in the part about him never admitting he
was wrong. You're circling it but won't commit."
- **nemesis:** "Your ending asks the reader to feel something you haven't set
up. The 'I finally understood' move is unearned."
---
### Recommended Priorities
1. **Restructure the opening** — Three reviewers flagged this. Start on the
boat, not before it.
2. **Earn the ending** — The emotional payoff needs setup. Show what you
finally understood through a scene, not a declaration.
3. **Decide on the tackle box** — Genuine tension. Your call based on what
you're optimizing for.
---
### The Hard Question
> What specifically did you learn from him that you couldn't have learned from
> anyone else? Multiple reviewers noted you assert the relationship's importance
> without showing what made it irreplaceable.
Error Handling
If a reviewer fails to spawn:
- Note which reviewer is missing
- Proceed with available outputs
- Mention the gap in synthesis
If the draft has no metadata:
- Infer what you can from the draft and request.
- State only assumptions that affect the panel or verdict.
- Do not create a status file merely to run the review.
If user provides no draft:
- Ask for the draft path or slug to load
- Or ask them to paste the draft
For tensions that deserve another round, offer cw-debate; do not automatically spend the extra time and context.
Lessons
[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]