tri-model-review · diff
git:20260504.7c44857 to git:20260606.33dc980
9 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: tri-model-review
- description: Multi-model orchestration — route to two external advisors, then synthesize
+ description: Use when a request needs parallel external perspectives — combined backend and UI work, code review from multiple angles, or cross-validation where different models may disagree.
level: 5
---
# Tri-Model Review
Tri-model review routes through two external advisor CLIs, then synthesizes both outputs into one answer.
Use this when you want parallel external perspectives.
## When to Use
- Backend/analysis + frontend/UI work in one request
- Code review from multiple perspectives (architecture + design/UX)
- Cross-validation where different models may disagree
- Fast advisor-style parallel input without full team runtime orchestration
## Requirements
- Ensure you have configured the appropriate `apx ask-*` wrappers.
- If either wrapper is unavailable, continue with whichever provider is available and note the limitation.
## How It Works
```text
1. Decompose the request into two advisor prompts:
- Analysis/architecture/backend prompt
- UX/design/docs/alternatives prompt
2. Run both advisors via the canonical wrappers:
- apx ask-codex "<prompt>"
- apx ask-gemini "<prompt>"
3. Synthesize both outputs into one final response
```
## Execution Protocol
When invoked, follow this workflow:
### 1. Decompose Request
+
Split the user request into:
- **Architecture prompt:** correctness, backend, risks, test strategy
- **UX prompt:** content clarity, alternatives, edge-case usability, docs polish
- **Synthesis plan:** how to reconcile conflicts
### 2. Invoke advisors via Bash
Run both advisors via the Bash tool:
```bash
apx ask-codex "<architecture prompt>"
apx ask-gemini "<UX prompt>"
```
### 3. Synthesize
Return one unified answer with:
- Agreed recommendations
- Conflicting recommendations (explicitly called out)
- Chosen final direction + rationale
- Action checklist
## Fallbacks
If one provider is unavailable:
- Continue with available provider + synthesis
- Clearly note missing perspective and risk
If both unavailable:
- Fall back to a single-model answer and state external advisors were unavailable.
+
+ ## Verification
+
+ - [ ] Request was decomposed into distinct architecture and UX prompts before invoking advisors
+ - [ ] Both advisors were invoked via the canonical wrappers — or the missing provider was explicitly noted
+ - [ ] Synthesis lists agreed recommendations, explicitly called-out conflicts, the chosen direction with rationale, and an action checklist
+ - [ ] Any provider fallback was stated, including the missing perspective and its risk