多审阅者模式：AI代码审查框架，协调安全、性能、架构等多维度并行审查

multi-reviewer-patterns by wshobson/agents

2,400 周安装量

32,299 GitHub Stars

GitHub

安装命令

npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill multi-reviewer-patterns

AI/机器学习开发生产力测试安全

🇨🇳中文介绍

多审阅者模式

用于协调跨多个质量维度的并行代码审查、去重发现、校准严重性并生成统一报告的模式。

何时使用此技能

组织多维度的代码审查
决定分配哪些审查维度
对来自多位审阅者的发现进行去重
一致地校准严重性评级
生成统一的审查报告

审查维度分配

可用维度

维度	关注点	何时包含
安全性	漏洞、认证、输入验证	对于处理用户输入或认证的代码始终包含
性能	查询效率、内存、缓存	当更改数据访问或热点路径时
架构	SOLID 原则、耦合、模式	对于结构性变更或新模块
测试	覆盖率、质量、边界情况	当添加新功能时
无障碍访问	WCAG、ARIA、键盘导航	对于 UI/前端变更

广告位招租

在这里展示您的产品或服务

触达数万 AI 开发者，精准高效

联系我们

相关 Skills

find-skills 技能搜索工具 - Vercel Labs 开源智能体技能包管理器

733,500 周安装

Vercel React 最佳实践指南 | 58条Next.js性能优化规则与代码重构

252,100 周安装

Vercel Web界面规范检查工具 - 自动检测代码是否符合Web设计指南

202,600 周安装

agent-browser 浏览器自动化工具 - Vercel Labs 命令行网页操作与测试

133,200 周安装

场景	维度
API 端点变更	安全性、性能、架构
前端组件	架构、测试、无障碍访问
数据库迁移	性能、架构
认证变更	安全性、测试
完整功能审查	安全性、性能、架构、测试

当多位审阅者在同一位置报告问题时：

相同文件:行号，相同问题 — 合并为一个发现，归功于所有审阅者
相同文件:行号，不同问题 — 保留为单独的发现
相同问题，不同位置 — 保留单独但相互引用
冲突的严重性 — 使用较高的严重性评级
冲突的建议 — 包含两者并注明审阅者归属

For each finding in all reviewer reports:
  1. Check if another finding references the same file:line
  2. If yes, check if they describe the same issue
  3. If same issue: merge, keeping the more detailed description
  4. If different issue: keep both, tag as "co-located"
  5. Use highest severity among merged findings

严重性	影响	可能性	示例
严重	数据丢失、安全漏洞、完全失效	确定或非常可能	SQL 注入、认证绕过、数据损坏
高	显著的功能影响、性能下降	可能	内存泄漏、缺少验证、流程中断
中	部分影响，存在变通方案	可能	N+1 查询、缺少边界情况、错误信息不明确
低	影响极小、外观问题	不太可能	样式问题、次要优化、命名问题

外部用户可利用的安全漏洞：始终为严重或高
热点路径中的性能问题：至少为中
关键路径缺少测试：至少为中
核心功能的无障碍访问违规：至少为中
无功能影响的代码风格问题：低

## Code Review Report

**Target**: {files/PR/directory}
**Reviewers**: {dimension-1}, {dimension-2}, {dimension-3}
**Date**: {date}
**Files Reviewed**: {count}

### Critical Findings ({count})

#### [CR-001] {Title}

**Location**: `{file}:{line}`
**Dimension**: {Security/Performance/etc.}
**Description**: {what was found}
**Impact**: {what could happen}
**Fix**: {recommended remediation}

### High Findings ({count})

...

### Medium Findings ({count})

...

### Low Findings ({count})

...

### Summary

| Dimension    | Critical | High  | Medium | Low   | Total  |
| ------------ | -------- | ----- | ------ | ----- | ------ |
| Security     | 1        | 2     | 3      | 0     | 6      |
| Performance  | 0        | 1     | 4      | 2     | 7      |
| Architecture | 0        | 0     | 2      | 3     | 5      |
| **Total**    | **1**    | **3** | **9**  | **5** | **18** |

### Recommendation

{Overall assessment and prioritized action items}

🇺🇸English

Multi-Reviewer Patterns

Patterns for coordinating parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions, deduplicating findings, calibrating severity, and producing consolidated reports.

When to Use This Skill

Organizing a multi-dimensional code review
Deciding which review dimensions to assign
Deduplicating findings from multiple reviewers
Calibrating severity ratings consistently
Producing a consolidated review report

Review Dimension Allocation

Available Dimensions

Dimension	Focus	When to Include
Security	Vulnerabilities, auth, input validation	Always for code handling user input or auth
Performance	Query efficiency, memory, caching	When changing data access or hot paths
Architecture	SOLID, coupling, patterns	For structural changes or new modules
Testing	Coverage, quality, edge cases	When adding new functionality
Accessibility	WCAG, ARIA, keyboard nav	For UI/frontend changes

Recommended Combinations

Scenario	Dimensions
API endpoint changes	Security, Performance, Architecture
Frontend component	Architecture, Testing, Accessibility
Database migration	Performance, Architecture
Authentication changes	Security, Testing
Full feature review	Security, Performance, Architecture, Testing

Finding Deduplication

When multiple reviewers report issues at the same location:

Merge Rules

Same file:line, same issue — Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers
Same file:line, different issues — Keep as separate findings
Same issue, different locations — Keep separate but cross-reference
Conflicting severity — Use the higher severity rating
Conflicting recommendations — Include both with reviewer attribution

Deduplication Process

For each finding in all reviewer reports:
  1. Check if another finding references the same file:line
  2. If yes, check if they describe the same issue
  3. If same issue: merge, keeping the more detailed description
  4. If different issue: keep both, tag as "co-located"
  5. Use highest severity among merged findings

Severity Calibration

Severity Criteria

Severity	Impact	Likelihood	Examples
Critical	Data loss, security breach, complete failure	Certain or very likely	SQL injection, auth bypass, data corruption
High	Significant functionality impact, degradation	Likely	Memory leak, missing validation, broken flow
Medium	Partial impact, workaround exists	Possible	N+1 query, missing edge case, unclear error
Low	Minimal impact, cosmetic	Unlikely	Style issue, minor optimization, naming

Calibration Rules

Security vulnerabilities exploitable by external users: always Critical or High
Performance issues in hot paths: at least Medium
Missing tests for critical paths: at least Medium
Accessibility violations for core functionality: at least Medium
Code style issues with no functional impact: Low

Consolidated Report Template

## Code Review Report

**Target**: {files/PR/directory}
**Reviewers**: {dimension-1}, {dimension-2}, {dimension-3}
**Date**: {date}
**Files Reviewed**: {count}

### Critical Findings ({count})

#### [CR-001] {Title}

**Location**: `{file}:{line}`
**Dimension**: {Security/Performance/etc.}
**Description**: {what was found}
**Impact**: {what could happen}
**Fix**: {recommended remediation}

### High Findings ({count})

...

### Medium Findings ({count})

...

### Low Findings ({count})

...

### Summary

| Dimension    | Critical | High  | Medium | Low   | Total  |
| ------------ | -------- | ----- | ------ | ----- | ------ |
| Security     | 1        | 2     | 3      | 0     | 6      |
| Performance  | 0        | 1     | 4      | 2     | 7      |
| Architecture | 0        | 0     | 2      | 3     | 5      |
| **Total**    | **1**    | **3** | **9**  | **5** | **18** |

### Recommendation

{Overall assessment and prioritized action items}

Weekly Installs

2.4K

Repository

wshobson/agents

GitHub Stars

32.3K

First Seen

Feb 5, 2026

Security Audits

Gen Agent Trust HubPass SocketPass SnykPass

Installed on

gemini-cli2.0K

codex1.9K

opencode1.9K

claude-code1.9K

cursor1.8K

github-copilot1.8K

React 组合模式指南：Vercel 组件架构最佳实践，提升代码可维护性

102,200 周安装

多审阅者模式：AI代码审查框架，协调安全、性能、架构等多维度并行审查

🇨🇳中文介绍

多审阅者模式

何时使用此技能

审查维度分配

可用维度

相关 Skills

推荐组合

发现去重

合并规则

去重流程

严重性校准

严重性标准

校准规则

统一报告模板