content-forge/.claude/skills/multi-review/SKILL.md

name

description

multi-review

Use MCO (Multi-CLI Orchestrator) to run parallel content review across multiple AI agents. Output: structured findings report with severity, consensus/divergence, and actionable fixes. USE WHEN: User wants to review/critique an existing draft or topic for quality, accuracy, or readability using multiple AI perspectives. Trigger phrases: 审查、review、critique、多角度审查、cross-check、质量检查。 DON'T USE WHEN: - User wants to CREATE new content from a topic → use write-article instead. - User wants to deeply ANALYZE content structure (dao framework) → use dao-analysis instead. - User wants to IMPORT an external file → use import-draft instead. - User wants to see vault status → use my-world instead. - User says "写文章"、"生成草稿"、"分析为什么火" → not this skill.

multi-review — Multi-Agent Content Review

Use MCO (Multi-CLI Orchestrator) to run parallel content review across multiple AI agents, combining perspectives for comprehensive feedback.

路由规则（Use when / Don't use when）

Use this skill when:

• Reviewing drafts before publication (03-review/ stage)
• Evaluating topic quality and angles (01-topics/ stage)
• Cross-checking technical accuracy in tech blogs
• Getting diverse feedback on content structure
• 用户说"审查我的草稿"、"review this"、"帮我检查质量"

Do NOT use this skill when:

• 用户想写新文章（从选题到草稿） → use write-article
• 用户想深度分析内容（道法术器框架） → use dao-analysis
• 用户想导入外部文件到 vault → use import-draft
• 用户想加载 vault 上下文 → use my-world

Edge cases:

• "审查我的草稿" → this skill（审查 = multi-review）
• "分析这篇文章为什么火" → not this skill（深度分析 = dao-analysis）
• "帮我把草稿改好" → this skill（改好需要先审查发现问题）
• "写一篇新文章" → not this skill（创作 = write-article）

Prerequisites

mco doctor
# Should show at least 2 providers READY

Workflow

Step 1: Identify Target Content

cd /home/kang/apps/content-forge/content-forge
obsidian files folder="02-drafts"
obsidian files folder="03-review"

Step 2: Read Content to Review

obsidian read path="<file-path>"

Step 3: Run Multi-Agent Review

Use MCO to get feedback from multiple agents:

mco review --repo /home/kang/apps/content-forge \
  --prompt "Review the content in <file-path> for:
1. Clarity and readability
2. Technical accuracy
3. Structure and flow
4. Missing information or gaps
5. Suggestions for improvement

Provide specific, actionable feedback." \
  --providers claude,codex \
  --target-paths content-forge/<file-path> \
  --synthesize \
  --format report

Step 4: Synthesize Results

When --synthesize is enabled, MCO will:

1. Collect findings from all agents
2. Deduplicate similar issues
3. Track which agent found what (detected_by)
4. Generate a consensus/divergence summary

Step 5: Apply Feedback

Review the synthesized output and decide which suggestions to incorporate. Update the content manually (Golden Rule: Agents Read, Humans Write).

Claude Provider Configuration

MCO-Plus supports custom configuration for the Claude provider via --provider-permissions-json:

Switch cc Environment

Use a different cc-managed API endpoint:

mco run --prompt "..." --providers claude \
  --provider-permissions-json '{"claude":{"cc_env":"bigmodel"}}'

Available cc environments (check with cc ls):

• 88 — 88code.org
• bigmodel — 智谱 BigModel
• cclaude — cclaude.codes
• relay — relay.nf.video
• vibe — vibe.codesuc.top

Switch Model

Specify Claude model:

mco run --prompt "..." --providers claude \
  --provider-permissions-json '{"claude":{"model":"opus"}}'

Model options: opus, sonnet, haiku, or full model name (e.g., claude-sonnet-4-6)

Combined Usage

mco review --repo /home/kang/apps/content-forge \
  --prompt "Review this content" \
  --providers claude,codex \
  --provider-permissions-json '{"claude":{"cc_env":"bigmodel","model":"sonnet"}}' \
  --target-paths content-forge/02-drafts/<file>.md \
  --synthesize

Output Format

MCO returns structured findings:

=== Multi-Agent Review ===
Task: Review <file-path>
Providers: claude, codex

## Findings (deduplicated)

### Issue 1: [description]
- Severity: High/Medium/Low
- Detected by: claude, codex
- Location: [specific section]
- Suggestion: [actionable fix]

### Issue 2: [description]
...

## Consensus
- Points all agents agreed on

## Divergence
- Points where agents disagreed

## Summary
- Total issues: X
- Critical: Y
- Suggestions: Z

Integration with Content Pipeline

Stage	MCO Use Case
01-topics	Evaluate topic quality, identify gaps
02-drafts	Pre-review feedback before human review
03-review	Parallel expert review
04-published	Post-mortem analysis for improvement

Example Prompts

Draft Review

Review this draft for clarity, accuracy, and engagement.
Focus on: technical correctness, logical flow, reader value.

Topic Evaluation

Evaluate this topic idea for:
1. Reader interest potential
2. Uniqueness vs existing content
3. Suggested angles to explore

Technical Accuracy Check

Verify all technical claims in this content.
Flag any inaccuracies or outdated information.
Suggest corrections with sources.

Configuration

Default providers: claude,codex (both ready on this system)

To add more providers:

• gemini — requires Gemini CLI installed
• opencode — requires OpenCode installed
• qwen — requires Qwen Code installed

Reference

• MCO-Plus Fork: https://github.com/CSZHK/mco-plus
• Original MCO: https://github.com/mco-org/mco
• cc Skill: ~/.claude/skills/cc/ (Claude Multi-Environment Manager)