workflow-review

Review: Multi-Agent Knowledge Work Review

You are orchestrating the Review phase of the Compound Knowledge Work loop. Your job is to evaluate completed work from multiple specialized perspectives and synthesize findings into actionable improvements.

Different perspectives catch different issues. A single reviewer misses things that parallel review catches.

Process

Phase 1: Determine Review Scope

1. Read the completed work thoroughly.
2. Identify the work type to select appropriate reviewers:

Work Type	Standard Reviewers	Conditional Reviewers
Communication	clarity-reviewer, tone-calibrator, completeness-auditor	sensitivity-scanner (if sensitive topic), strategic-alignment-checker (if strategic)
Decision	completeness-auditor, risk-assessor, devil's-advocate, actionability-validator	strategic-alignment-checker (if organizational), sensitivity-scanner (if political)
Analysis	completeness-auditor, clarity-reviewer, actionability-validator	risk-assessor (if recommendations included), devil's-advocate (if controversial)
Meeting prep	completeness-auditor, actionability-validator, clarity-reviewer	stakeholder-mapper (if complex dynamics), sensitivity-scanner (if contentious topics)
Coaching notes	clarity-reviewer, actionability-validator	tone-calibrator (if shared with coachee)

3. Check if the plan specified reviewers. If so, use those as the baseline.

Phase 2: Parallel Agent Review

Launch all selected review agents in parallel using the Task tool.

Each agent reviews independently and returns findings in their specialized format.

Agent Instructions:

• Each agent receives the complete work output
• Each agent applies its specialized lens
• Each agent returns findings with severity levels

Phase 3: Synthesize Findings

After all agents return, synthesize their findings:

Output Format:

## Review Summary

### Overall Assessment
**Quality Score**: [1-10]
[2-3 sentence assessment of overall quality and readiness]

### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
Issues that would cause real problems if not addressed.

#### Issue 1: [Title]
- **Found by**: [Agent name]
- **Location**: [Where in the document]
- **Problem**: [What's wrong]
- **Impact**: [What happens if not fixed]
- **Fix**: [Specific recommendation]

### Important Issues (Should Fix)
Issues that meaningfully improve quality.

#### Issue 1: [Title]
- **Found by**: [Agent name]
- **Location**: [Where in the document]
- **Problem**: [What's wrong]
- **Fix**: [Specific recommendation]

### Minor Issues (Nice to Fix)
Polish and refinement opportunities.

- [Issue]: [Quick fix] _(found by [agent])_
- [Issue]: [Quick fix] _(found by [agent])_

### What's Working Well
- [Strength 1] _(noted by [agent])_
- [Strength 2] _(noted by [agent])_

### Conflicting Feedback
[If agents disagree, note the conflict and recommend resolution]

### Recommended Action
- [ ] Fix critical issues (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Fix important issues (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Fix minor issues (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Ready to finalize after fixes

Phase 4: Apply Fixes

If the user approves:

1. Fix critical issues first.
2. Fix important issues.
3. Fix minor issues if time permits.
4. Present the revised version with a summary of changes made.

If issues conflict, present the tradeoff to the user and let them decide.

Review Principles

Severity Calibration

• Critical: Would cause real damage - wrong tone in sensitive email, missing key stakeholder concern, factual error in analysis, flawed logic in decision
• Important: Meaningful quality improvement - unclear structure, missing context, weak evidence, incomplete consideration
• Minor: Polish - word choice, formatting, small redundancies

Independence Matters

• Each agent reviews independently
• Don't let one agent's findings influence another
• Conflicts between agents are valuable signal

Review Should Be Proportional

• Quick internal note: clarity-reviewer only
• Important email: clarity + tone + completeness
• Board presentation: all standard + conditional reviewers
• Strategic decision: all reviewers including devil's-advocate

The Devil's Advocate is Special

• Always include for decisions and recommendations
• Its job is to find the strongest counterargument
• Don't dismiss its findings just because you disagree
• If the devil's advocate can't find a good counterargument, that's strong validation

Next Step

When the work is finalized, capture what you learned: /coworkpowers:workflow-compound

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

• Running review on low-stakes work (wastes time)
• Ignoring conflicting feedback instead of resolving it
• Treating all findings as equal severity
• Over-revising based on minor feedback
• Not running devil's advocate on important decisions
• Applying fixes without user awareness of what changed