multi-reviewlisted

# Multi-Provider Code Review Run independent code reviews from Antigravity and Codex in parallel, **verify** each finding against the source, then present combined consensus / unique / rejected sections so the user sees what really matters and what was a false positive. (Gemini is one command away via the `gemini-reviewer` agent or `/gemini-review` if you want it in the mix.) ## Why verification matters Confidence scores are not an oracle. In a real session on 2026-04-17, Gemini returned two findings at 95/100 confidence that were factually wrong (a `z.enum([])` claim that ignored an existing fallback, and an "MCP SDK doesn't support outputSchema" claim that was contradicted by the actual `.d.ts`). Both would have caused a mis-fix if accepted at face value. **Always verify before presenting.** ## Two kinds of verification — pick the right skill This skill verifies **review findings** — the bugs each provider claims it found. Phase 3 reads the file at the cited line and checks whether each finding is real before presenting it. That is different from verifying **assistant claims** — the statements the assistant made in its prior turn ("I added retry logic," "I bumped the threshold to 16384"). For that, use `/codex-verify`. It dispatches the `codex-verifier` agent, decomposes the assistant's last message into atomic claims, and proves or disproves each with deterministic evidence. It returns a CONFIDENCE grade on a five-point ladder (`PERFECT | VERIFIED | PARTIAL | FEEDBAC