A skill named in bold or in backticks, or run as /<name>, is the file ../<name>/SKILL.md beside this skill's directory, and a principle named without its prefix is ../principle-<name>/SKILL.md. Read the file and follow it. Most pstack skills are user-only, so your skill tool cannot load them. Every delegate_task call follows the defaults in the Subagents section of ../poteto-mode/SKILL.md.
Spawn one reviewer per configured model to adversarially review code changes. The adversarial signal comes from model diversity, 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, one delegate_task child per entry on the interrogate reviewers line in ~/.config/pstack/pstack-models.md, labeled Reviewer A, B, and so on to match the entry count. If the file or that line is missing, run Reviewer A on the parent thread's model and one more reviewer on the strongest model of each other provider that orchestrator_capabilities reports with canRunChildTask, up to three reviewers. Say so and suggest /setup-pstack.
Each reviewer gets the title interrogate reviewer <label>, a brief that says read-only: inspect only, no writes, no git commands, and target set from its entry per the Subagents section. Omit target for an auto or inherit-parent entry, so that reviewer runs on the parent model.
If delegate_task rejects a configured entry, run that reviewer on the closest model of the same provider that orchestrator_capabilities lists and say so. Do not block the review on it. Never treat an alias entry as a rejected entry or apply the fallback to it.
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. Pick each subagent's reasoning level and fast or standard speed for the job, per the Subagents section of the poteto-mode skill.
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 models raised each one. Findings two or more models raised independently are the highest signal. Read a lone model's finding, but weight it accordingly. Note disagreements. If one model 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 model(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]: [model name], [N findings] (one bullet per reviewer)
Act On
[Each: description, which models raised it, why it matters.]
Consider
[Each: description, which models raised it, the tradeoff.]
Noted
[Brief list.]
Dismissed
[Each with a brief rationale.]
Agreement Map
[Where models agreed and diverged, and what that pattern tells us.]