Catalog
Yeachan-Heo/interrogate

Yeachan-Heo

interrogate

Adversarial pass over a diff or design: three reviewers on different models each try to break it — correctness, security, edge cases — findings merged by severity into a blocking verdict. For contested or high-risk changes.

NewUpdated Nov 9, 2026

Interrogate

Three independent reviewers try to break the work before it ships. Diversity is the mechanism: reviewers on different models or provider families find different classes of defects, and agreement across them is high-signal. This is an adversarial lane on top of review, not a replacement for it.

When to use

  • a diff or design is contested, high-risk, or security-adjacent
  • work is about to ship and a single review pass is not enough evidence
  • the user asks to "stress-test", "red-team", or "try to break" a change

When not to use

  • routine changes with passing verification — review alone is enough
  • the deliverable is an answer, not an artifact under judgment

Phase 1 — Frame the target

Name exactly what is under interrogation: the diff (default), a design doc, or an API contract. State the invariants the change must preserve; reviewers attack those first.

Phase 2 — Seat the panel

Spawn three reviewers in one message, in the background, each read-only:

  • seat the panel as a diverse-model panel — different provider families find different defect classes, and agreement across them is high-signal. Read team.roleRouting from the project config (.claude/omc.jsonc) or the user config (claude-omc/config.jsonc; omc config prints the effective values) and collect up to three distinct provider families in canonical role order, filling any remaining seats from the default families — claude, codex, gemini — not already seated, and say which family each seat got. When no routing config exists, fall back to OMC_TEAM_WORKTREE_MODE=detached omc team --no-decompose 1:claude,1:codex,1:gemini "<the framed target, the invariants, and one lens per seat>", or in-session Task dispatches to oh-my-claudecode:code-reviewer and oh-my-claudecode:security-reviewer on different models — the team command needs the task text; pass target, invariants, and lens allocation as that task
  • each reviewer gets the same target by path, the invariants, and one lens: correctness, security and trust boundaries, or edge cases and failure modes
  • wait for every reviewer to reach a terminal state and collect its output before Phase 3 — the team route starts workers asynchronously, and merging before they finish reports an empty panel; a worker that stalls past the stated interval is named as missing, not silently dropped. Keep worktrees and team state alive through judging, and run omc team shutdown <team-name> --force (the name the startup snapshot prints; --force skips the confirmation prompt) only in the final cleanup step after verification, as the arena skill sequences it
  • instruct each to prove every finding with a run against the real code — a failing test, a repro script, or command output that shows the wrong behavior; for a design or plan, a prototype or a probe of the current tree — and to leave out anything it did not run. No findings is a valid result. Findings come back as {severity: blocker|major|minor, claim, evidence, location} where the evidence is the command and the output it printed — a finding without a run is dropped

Phase 3 — Merge

You own the merge. Collect the panels' findings, re-run each finding's command yourself, and keep only what reproduces and breaks the invariants; merge findings that share a root cause, and rank the rest by severity. A claim two reviewers disagree on is a question for the code, not a vote — resolve it by reading or running. In the reply, say how many findings each reviewer produced and how many did not survive the rerun, so a clean panel reads as a result, not a silence.

Phase 4 — Verdict

  • block: any blocker finding stands after re-reading the evidence. The work goes back to the author lane with the finding list; nothing merges.
  • revise: only major or minor findings. Fix-forward is safe.
  • pass: no standing findings. Record the verdict with the reviewers' models named, in the reply.

The verdict is advisory to review and to the human; it never merges or gates delivery on its own. When interrogation blocks, say what would change the verdict.

Phase 5 — Cleanup

After the verdict is delivered, run omc team shutdown <team-name> --force (the name the startup snapshot printed) unconditionally — on pass, revise, block, and error paths alike. The panel's workers, tmux panes, team state, and detached worktrees must not outlive the interrogation. Keep the target checkout intact; only team-managed resources are cleaned.

Rules

  • Never count your own review as one of the three.
  • A reviewer that cannot run (missing provider, agent limits) is named in the verdict as missing; two reviewers still produce a verdict, one does not.
  • Findings are about the artifact, not the author; keep the tone clinical.
Files4
4 files · 7.5 KB

Select a file to preview

Overall Score

82/100

Grade

B

Good

Grades are signals, not a certification. Always review a skill yourself before use.

Safety

88

Quality

85

Clarity

88

Completeness

72

Summary

The "interrogate" skill orchestrates an adversarial multi-model code review process where three independent reviewers—each focusing on a different lens (correctness, security, edge cases)—analyze diffs or designs to find defects before shipping. The skill guides the user through five phases: framing the target, seating a diverse panel, merging findings with evidence-based verification, rendering a verdict, and cleanup. It emphasizes that agreement across diverse models is a high-confidence signal and that all findings must be proven with reproducible commands or tests.

Detected Capabilities

multi-model routing (team command)diff reading and analysisdesign document reviewfile system access (read-only for code)command execution (to reproduce findings)terminal output parsingteam/worker lifecycle management

Trigger Keywords

Phrases that agents use to match this skill to user intent.

red-team code changeadversarial code reviewsecurity audit before mergestress-test designmulti-model review panel

Risk Signals

INFO

Team command spawns multiple workers with `omc team` and manages tmux panes and detached worktrees

Phase 2 and Phase 5
WARNING

Instructions require explicit cleanup via `omc team shutdown --force` to prevent worker panes and state from outliving the interrogation

Phase 5
INFO

Skill routes to different AI models; user may not have access to all three provider families, resulting in incomplete panel

Phase 2, rules

Referenced Domains

External domains referenced in skill content, detected by static analysis.

github.com

Use Cases

  • Stress-test security-adjacent changes before merge
  • High-stakes code review for disputed or risky diffs
  • Red-team analysis of design documents or API contracts
  • Verify correctness under edge cases and failure modes
  • Validate that all findings are reproducible before acting on them

Quality Notes

  • Skill is exceptionally well-documented with clear phase boundaries and rules; each phase has explicit entry/exit conditions.
  • Rubric and judgment framework files provide concrete guidance for reviewers and the lead; no ambiguity about what constitutes a finding.
  • Emphasis on evidence-based findings ('prove every finding with a run') prevents speculative or untestable claims.
  • Explicit guardrails: only blocker findings block; reviewer conflicts resolved by reading code, not by vote.
  • Potential friction: skill depends on external tools (omc, team routing config) and multi-model availability; failure modes documented (missing provider, agent limits) but mitigation relies on user awareness.
  • Reference materials are well-structured and adapted from pstack (prior art); attribution and porting details are clear.
  • No supporting implementation code (scripts); skill is instruction-only, which limits execution risk but means the user must understand omc team semantics.
Model: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001Analyzed: Nov 9, 2026

Reviews

Add this skill to your library to leave a review.

No reviews yet

Be the first to share your experience.

Version History

  1. v1.1

    Content updated

    ✦ AIClarifies panel diversity rationale: different provider families improve defect detection and signal strength.

    2026-11-09

    LATEST
  2. v1.0

    2026-11-08

    View This VersionInitial version

Use Yeachan-Heo/interrogate in your dev environment

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...