auto-decorrelation
SolidRecruits cross-family verifier sidecars (codex, agy, local 4090 over Tailscale) for adversarial verification of load-bearing changes, maximizing model-family diversity against the orchestrator. Mechanically discovers the available sidecar panel, recruits at least one cross-family verifier when present, and degrades gracefully when none are. The governor (Claude) keeps the terminal verdict; sidecar findings must be source-grounded before acceptance. Opt-in via one-time consent, stored in the UAP; fires only on load-bearing changes. Triggered by "recruit a cross-family check", "decorrelate this verification", "use the idle sidecars to verify", "auto-decorrelation".
Install
Quality Score: 79/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- chrono-meta
- Repository
- chrono-meta/forge-harness
- Created
- 2 months ago
- Last Updated
- today
- Language
- Shell
- License
- MIT
Integrates with
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
cross-model-review
Get an adversarial review from a DIFFERENT model family before a load-bearing merge/ship — the mechanized form of "the author is not the judge" when the strongest independent lens is another model, not just a fresh-context subagent of your own. Load when about to merge/ship load-bearing work (code, or a load-bearing plan/spec/doctrine doc), or when the user asks to get an external/second model to review. Do NOT load for routine changes a same-model fresh-context critic covers (delegation-and-review §3), for routine copy/marketing/user-facing prose, or as a way to skip reproducing findings yourself.
council
Gathers N independent, decorrelated perspectives across model families (external CLIs when present, subagents when not) and arbitrates inline. Use when a decision needs genuine debate — not same-model echo — for critique, review, or judge calls. Honest about degradation: never claims 'consensus' from a single model family.
ref-sp-agents-verification-discipline
Portable verification discipline that counters jumping to answers, sycophancy, and overconfidence: enumerate candidate approaches or root causes, route verification by confidence and stakes, prune on evidence, abstain explicitly when nothing can settle a claim. Use when: choosing between approaches or root causes, acting on an unverified claim or assumption, responding when the user challenges or contradicts a conclusion, deciding how much verification a risky or irreversible action needs, or calibrating stated confidence in answers, reviews, and reports.