L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Développement · SKILL.md

cross-review-project

cross-review-project

Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated progression.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: cross-review-project locale: caveman-ultra source_locale: en source_commit: 82c77053 fence_basis_commit: 82c77053 translator: "Julius Brussee homage — caveman" translation_date: "2026-04-19" description: > Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated progression. license: MIT allowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash Grep Glob metadata: author: Philipp Thoss version: "1.0" domain: mcp-integration complexity: advanced language: multi tags: mcp, cross-review, multi-agent, code-review, qsg, a2a

Cross-Review Project

2 Claude Code instances review each other via cross-review-mcp broker. QSG scaling laws enforce quality: bundles ≥5 findings → selection regime (Γ_h ≈ 1.67), prevents shallow consensus.

Use When

  • 2 projects share arch concerns
  • Indep review beyond 1 reviewer
  • Cross-pollinate: find patterns missing in other
  • Structured evidence-backed verdicts (accept/reject/discuss)

In

  • Required: 2 project paths, 2 Claude Code instances
  • Required: cross-review-mcp broker + MCP server in both
  • Optional: Focus areas (dirs, patterns, concerns)
  • Optional: Agent IDs (def: project dir name)

Do

Step 1: Prereqs

Broker running + both instances reach it.

  1. Broker configured:
    claude mcp list | grep cross-review
    
  2. Call get_status → responsive + no stale agents
  3. Read cross-review://protocol — markdown doc w/ dims + QSG constraints

Got: Broker responds w/ empty agent list. Protocol readable.

If err: Not configured → claude mcp add cross-review-mcp -- npx cross-review-mcp. Stale agents → deregister each first.

Step 2: Register

  1. Call register:
    • agentId: short unique ID (project dir name)
    • project: project name
    • capabilities: ["review", "suggest"]
  2. Verify: get_status → agent at phase "registered"
  3. Wait for peer: wait_for_phase w/ peer ID + phase "registered"

Got: Both registered. get_status → 2 agents @ "registered".

If err: register fails "already registered" → ID taken from prior. deregister first + re-register.

Step 3: Briefing

Read own codebase, send structured briefing → peer.

  1. Systematic read:
    • Entry pts (main, index, CLI)
    • Dep graph (package.json, DESCRIPTION, go.mod)
    • Arch patterns (dirs, modules)
    • Known issues (TODOs, issues, debt)
    • Test coverage (tests, CI)
  2. Compose Briefing — structured summary → peer navigates efficiently
  3. send_task:
    • from: your ID
    • to: peer ID
    • type: "briefing"
    • payload: JSON briefing
  4. signal_phase → "briefing"

Got: Briefing sent + phase signaled. Broker enforces briefing pre-review.

If err: send_task rejects → from must = registered ID. Self-sends rejected.

Step 4: Review

Wait peer briefing, review their code, send findings.

  1. wait_for_phase peer ID + "briefing"
  2. poll_tasks → peer's briefing
  3. ack_tasks w/ task IDs (peek-then-ack req)
  4. Read peer's src, informed by briefing
  5. Findings, 6 cats:
    • pattern_transfer — pattern in yours peer could adopt
    • missing_practice — practice peer lacks (testing, valid., err handling)
    • inconsistency — internal contradiction in peer
    • simplification — unnecessary complexity
    • bug_risk — potential runtime fail / edge case
    • documentation_gap — missing / misleading docs
  6. Each finding:
    • id: unique ("F-001")
    • category: 1 of 6
    • targetFile: path in peer
    • description: what found
    • evidence: why valid (code refs, patterns)
    • sourceAnalog (rec): equivalent in yours → single mech for genuine cross-pollination
  7. Bundle ≥5 findings (QSG: m ≥ 5 keeps Γ_h ≈ 1.67 selection regime)
  8. send_task type "review_bundle" + JSON findings array
  9. signal_phase → "review"

Got: Bundle accepted. <5 → rejected.

If err: Rejected for <5 → review deeper. Constraint prevents shallow dominating. Can't find 5 → reconsider if cross-review fits.

Step 5: Dialogue

Receive findings about yours → respond w/ verdicts.

  1. wait_for_phase peer + "review"
  2. poll_tasks → findings about yours
  3. ack_tasks
  4. Per finding, FindingResponse:
    • findingId: matches finding's ID
    • verdict: "accept" (valid, will act) / "reject" (invalid + counter-evidence) / "discuss" (needs clarify)
    • evidence: why accept/reject — must be non-empty
    • counterEvidence (opt): code refs contradicting
  5. Send all → send_task type "response"
  6. signal_phase → "dialogue"

Note: "discuss" not gated → flag for manual follow-up, not auto sub-exchange.

Got: All findings → verdict. Empty → rejected.

If err: Can't form opinion → default "discuss" + evidence explaining what context needed.

Step 6: Synthesis

Produce synth artifact: accepted findings + planned actions.

  1. wait_for_phase peer + "dialogue"
  2. Poll remaining + ack
  3. Compile Synthesis:
    • Accepted + planned actions (what change + why)
    • Rejected + reasons (preserves reasoning)
  4. send_task type "synthesis" + JSON synth
  5. signal_phase → "synthesis"
  6. Optional: create GH issues for accepted
  7. signal_phase → "complete"
  8. deregister → cleanup

Got: Both reach "complete". Broker req ≥2 registered to advance.

If err: Peer already deregistered → complete locally. Compile synth from received.

Check

  • Both registered + reached "complete"
  • Briefings exchanged pre-review (phase enforced)
  • Bundles ≥5 findings each
  • All findings → verdict + evidence
  • ack_tasks after every poll_tasks
  • Synth produced + actions mapped
  • Deregistered post-complete

Traps

  • <5 findings: Broker rejects m<5. Not arbitrary — N=2 agents × 6 cats, m<5 → Γ_h at/below critical → consensus = noise. Review deeper; can't find 5 → projects may not benefit.
  • Forgot ack_tasks: Peek-then-ack delivery. Tasks stay in queue until acked. Forget → dup processing on next poll.
  • Forgot from param: send_task needs explicit from = your ID. Self-sends rejected.
  • Same-model epistemic correlation: 2 Claude share training biases. Temporal ordering prevents reading during review, but priors correlated. Genuine epistemic indep → diff model families.
  • Skip sourceAnalog: Optional but single mech for genuine cross-pollination — shows your impl of pattern. Populate when exists.
  • Treat discuss as blocking: Protocol doesn't gate complete on pending discussions. Flag for manual follow-up post-session.
  • Skip telemetry: Broker logs all → JSONL. Post-session, validate QSG: estimate α empirical (α ≈ 1 - reject_rate) + check per-cat accept rates.

→

  • scaffold-mcp-server — build/extend broker
  • implement-a2a-server — A2A patterns broker draws from
  • review-codebase — single-agent (this extends → cross-agent structured)
  • build-consensus — swarm consensus (QSG theoretical foundation)
  • configure-mcp-server — broker as MCP in Claude Code
  • unleash-the-agents — analyze broker itself (battle-tested: 40 agents, 10 hypothesis families)
Skills enregistrées