Multi-LLM review for code AND architecture decisions. Auto-detects mode or use --arch flag.
Get consensus from multiple LLMs on code quality OR architectural decisions.
/multi-review <file-path> # Code review (auto-detected)
/multi-review <question or decision> # Architecture review (auto-detected)
/multi-review --arch <decision to evaluate> # Force architecture mode
/multi-review --code <file-path> # Force code review mode
| Input | Mode |
|---|---|
File path (.go, .ts, .tsx, etc.) | Code review |
| Question ("Should we...", "What's the best...") | Architecture |
| Plan or design doc | Architecture |
--arch flag |
| Architecture (forced) |
--code flag | Code review (forced) |
See .claude/docs/multi-llm-review.md for model selection, quota limits, and fallback logic.
Code Review Mode:
Architecture Mode:
Launch all models from .claude/docs/multi-llm-review.md simultaneously (single message, multiple tool calls). This includes Codex, Gemini, AND seq-server — do NOT skip any.
Analyze all responses and identify:
## Multi-LLM Code Review: [filename]
### Consensus Issues (High Confidence)
| Issue | Found By | Severity |
|-------|----------|----------|
| [description] | o3-pro, gpt-5.2 | HIGH/MED/LOW |
### Additional Findings
- [Issue] (found by [model]) - [verify/consider]
### Recommendations
1. [Priority fix]
2. [Secondary fix]
### Confidence: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
## Multi-LLM Architecture Review: [decision]
### Model Recommendations
| Model | Recommendation | Key Reasoning |
|-------|----------------|---------------|
| o3-pro | [option] | [rationale] |
| gpt-5.2-codex | [option] | [rationale] |
| Gemini | [option] | [rationale] |
### Consensus Points
- [What all models agree on]
### Disagreements
- [Where models differ and why]
### Final Recommendation
[Synthesized decision with implementation guidance]
### Risks & Mitigations
- Risk: [issue] → Mitigation: [solution]
### Confidence: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
Review this [language] code for:
1. Bugs and logic errors
2. Security vulnerabilities
3. Performance issues
4. Code clarity and maintainability
5. Adherence to best practices
<code>
[paste code]
</code>
Provide specific, actionable findings with line numbers.
Evaluate this architectural decision:
Context: [situation summary]
Options: [list options being considered]
Constraints: [requirements, limitations]
Questions:
1. Which option do you recommend and why?
2. What are the trade-offs?
3. What risks should we mitigate?
Provide a concrete recommendation with rationale.
See .claude/docs/multi-llm-review.md for CLI commands and quota fallback logic.
.claude/docs/multi-llm-review.md for models, quotas, and fallback logic# Review a Go file
/multi-review server/app/item_core.go
# Review architecture decision
/multi-review Should we use Redis or PostgreSQL for caching?
# Force architecture mode on a plan doc
/multi-review --arch implementation-plans/new-feature.md
# Review with specific focus
/multi-review server/api4/page_api.go - Focus on security and input validation