---
id: sm-multi-reviewer-patterns
name: "multi-reviewer-patterns"
url: https://skills.yangsir.net/skill/sm-multi-reviewer-patterns
author: wshobson
domain: ai-code-generation-quality
tags: ["code-review", "git-workflow", "team-collaboration", "quality-assurance", "devops-practices"]
install_count: 9700
rating: 4.50 (26 reviews)
github: https://github.com/wshobson/agents
---

# multi-reviewer-patterns

> 专注于DevOps多评审员模式，利用智能自动化和多智能体编排，优化代码审查流程，提升代码质量。

**Stats**: 9,700 installs · 4.5/5 (26 reviews)

## Before / After 对比

### 智能多评审模式，提升代码质量

## Readme

# multi-reviewer-patterns

# Multi-Reviewer Patterns

Patterns for coordinating parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions, deduplicating findings, calibrating severity, and producing consolidated reports.

## When to Use This Skill

- Organizing a multi-dimensional code review

- Deciding which review dimensions to assign

- Deduplicating findings from multiple reviewers

- Calibrating severity ratings consistently

- Producing a consolidated review report

## Review Dimension Allocation

### Available Dimensions

Dimension
Focus
When to Include

**Security**
Vulnerabilities, auth, input validation
Always for code handling user input or auth

**Performance**
Query efficiency, memory, caching
When changing data access or hot paths

**Architecture**
SOLID, coupling, patterns
For structural changes or new modules

**Testing**
Coverage, quality, edge cases
When adding new functionality

**Accessibility**
WCAG, ARIA, keyboard nav
For UI/frontend changes

### Recommended Combinations

Scenario
Dimensions

API endpoint changes
Security, Performance, Architecture

Frontend component
Architecture, Testing, Accessibility

Database migration
Performance, Architecture

Authentication changes
Security, Testing

Full feature review
Security, Performance, Architecture, Testing

## Finding Deduplication

When multiple reviewers report issues at the same location:

### Merge Rules

- **Same file:line, same issue** — Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers

- **Same file:line, different issues** — Keep as separate findings

- **Same issue, different locations** — Keep separate but cross-reference

- **Conflicting severity** — Use the higher severity rating

- **Conflicting recommendations** — Include both with reviewer attribution

### Deduplication Process

```
For each finding in all reviewer reports:
  1. Check if another finding references the same file:line
  2. If yes, check if they describe the same issue
  3. If same issue: merge, keeping the more detailed description
  4. If different issue: keep both, tag as "co-located"
  5. Use highest severity among merged findings

```

## Severity Calibration

### Severity Criteria

Severity
Impact
Likelihood
Examples

**Critical**
Data loss, security breach, complete failure
Certain or very likely
SQL injection, auth bypass, data corruption

**High**
Significant functionality impact, degradation
Likely
Memory leak, missing validation, broken flow

**Medium**
Partial impact, workaround exists
Possible
N+1 query, missing edge case, unclear error

**Low**
Minimal impact, cosmetic
Unlikely
Style issue, minor optimization, naming

### Calibration Rules

- Security vulnerabilities exploitable by external users: always Critical or High

- Performance issues in hot paths: at least Medium

- Missing tests for critical paths: at least Medium

- Accessibility violations for core functionality: at least Medium

- Code style issues with no functional impact: Low

## Consolidated Report Template

```
## Code Review Report

**Target**: {files/PR/directory}
**Reviewers**: {dimension-1}, {dimension-2}, {dimension-3}
**Date**: {date}
**Files Reviewed**: {count}

### Critical Findings ({count})

#### [CR-001] {Title}

**Location**: `{file}:{line}`
**Dimension**: {Security/Performance/etc.}
**Description**: {what was found}
**Impact**: {what could happen}
**Fix**: {recommended remediation}

### High Findings ({count})

...

### Medium Findings ({count})

...

### Low Findings ({count})

...

### Summary

| Dimension    | Critical | High  | Medium | Low   | Total  |
| ------------ | -------- | ----- | ------ | ----- | ------ |
| Security     | 1        | 2     | 3      | 0     | 6      |
| Performance  | 0        | 1     | 4      | 2     | 7      |
| Architecture | 0        | 0     | 2      | 3     | 5      |
| **Total**    | **1**    | **3** | **9**  | **5** | **18** |

### Recommendation

{Overall assessment and prioritized action items}

```
Weekly Installs2.1KRepository[wshobson/agents](https://github.com/wshobson/agents)GitHub Stars31.5KFirst SeenFeb 5, 2026Security Audits[Gen Agent Trust HubPass](/wshobson/agents/multi-reviewer-patterns/security/agent-trust-hub)[SocketPass](/wshobson/agents/multi-reviewer-patterns/security/socket)[SnykPass](/wshobson/agents/multi-reviewer-patterns/security/snyk)Installed ongemini-cli1.7Kopencode1.6Kcodex1.6Kclaude-code1.6Kcursor1.5Kgithub-copilot1.5K

---
*Source: https://skills.yangsir.net/skill/sm-multi-reviewer-patterns*
*Markdown mirror: https://skills.yangsir.net/api/skill/sm-multi-reviewer-patterns/markdown*