llm-council

Solid

Use when a pr-council-review (PR or branch mode) result needs independent corroboration from a different model family before trusting a GREEN verdict — high-stakes, security-sensitive, or architecturally significant reviews where same-model-family Claude subagents might share a blind spot. Also use when the user asks for "external", "second opinion", "cross-model", or names codex/antigravity (`agy`) or another external CLI coding agent alongside a review.

AI & Automation 122 stars 33 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 83/100

Stars 20%
70
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
50
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# `llm-council` — external-tools review layer ## Overview Wraps `pr-council-review` (unchanged) and adds a layer of external CLI coding agents (`codex`, plus Antigravity — the `agy` harness) as additional independent reviewers, then folds their verdicts into the same synthesis. Internal Claude subagents are independent per-dimension but share one model family's blind spots — a phrasing choice, a Windows-vs-POSIX nuance, or a syntax error that reads fine to one Claude reviewer reads fine to all of them. A different model family catches a different error distribution. Confirmed live: on one review, external tools caught 6 real, distinct issues (a wording-accuracy bug, a wrong test count, a Windows-only test-triviality nuance, a test-isolation gap, a missing test, a malformed markdown fence) that 12 internal Claude-subagent dispatches (6 dimensions × 2 rounds) had all missed. ## When to Use - Any `pr-council-review` run (PR# mode or branch mode) where the artifact is high-stakes enough to want a second, differently-biased opinion before calling it GREEN. - Not needed for a quick spot-check or draft iteration — use `/review` (single-agent) for that; `pr-council-review` alone for a normal-stakes PR. ## Quick Reference — Tiers | Tier | Internal (pr-council-review) | External tools | |---|---|---| | `small` (default) | ✅ full dimension council | none — identical to running `pr-council-review` directly | | `medium` | ✅ | `codex` | | `high` | ✅ | `codex` + Antigravity (`agy`) | ...

Details

Author
ffroliva
Repository
ffroliva/gflow-cli
Created
3 months ago
Last Updated
today
Language
Python
License
MIT

Integrates with

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

Code & Development Solid

pr-council-review

Multi-dimensional LLM council review of an open PR (default) or a local feature branch (§ 8 branch mode, invoked via `/gflow:branch-review`). Five baseline dimensions (correctness, quality, security, tests, memory-hygiene) plus adaptive dimensions per surface (transports / data / CLI / docs / auth / BDD / scripts / release-gate). Each agent invokes specialized skills (security-review, code-review, verify) for its dimension. Reads files via `git show <sha>:<path>` to avoid stale-working-tree false positives. Cross-tool portable.

122 Updated today
ffroliva
AI & Automation Featured

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.

84 Updated 5 days ago
Rune-kit
AI & Automation Listed

llm-council

Run a decision through a council of five advisors who analyze it independently, peer-review each other anonymously with a forced ranking, and get synthesized into one verdict. Adapted from Andrej Karpathy's LLM Council. MANDATORY TRIGGERS - "council this", "run the council", "war room this", "pressure-test this", "stress-test this", "debate this". STRONG TRIGGERS when paired with a real tradeoff - "should I X or Y", "which option", "what would you do", "is this the right move", "validate this", "get multiple perspectives", "I can't decide", "I'm torn between". Do NOT trigger on factual lookups, creation tasks ("write me a tweet"), processing tasks ("summarize this"), or a casual "should I" with no meaningful tradeoff. DO trigger when there is genuine uncertainty, more than one defensible option, and a real cost to being wrong.

0 Updated 2 weeks ago
Carlos-Padilla-Bravo