Skip to content
anlyon.devby Anlyon

cross-eval

by Alireza Rezvani

/c-level-agents:cross-eval [memo] — Multi-model consensus on a board memo or strategy brief. Claude + Codex + Gemini cross-review with graceful degradation. Use when a high-stakes memo needs an independent sanity check before the boardroom — e.g. a bet-the-company pivot or fundraise terms.

Instructions only

Labels from its files: instructions only. 1 file, read Oct 23, 2026. Nothing was run.

npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill cross-eval

What it lets an agent do

Each label, and the line in the skill's files that set it.

  • Instructions only

    Text only: no shell, no file writes, no scripts.

    • No shell, no file writes, no network and no scripts found.

Findings

Matches of fixed checks, with the text they matched.

No check matched anything in this skill's files.

Not a safety rating, and no finding is not a safety guarantee. These are fixed checks of the files as read on Oct 23, 2026. Nothing was run. How skills are checked.

SKILL.md

As the publisher wrote it. Shown as text, never rendered.

Publisher text
---
name: "cross-eval"
description: "/c-level-agents:cross-eval [memo] — Multi-model consensus on a board memo or strategy brief. Claude + Codex + Gemini cross-review with graceful degradation. Use when a high-stakes memo needs an independent sanity check before the boardroom — e.g. a bet-the-company pivot or fundraise terms."
---

# /c-level-agents:cross-eval — Multi-Model Consensus

**Command:** `/c-level-agents:cross-eval <memo-or-brief>`

Runs the same memo through multiple model providers and reconciles divergences. Use for **high-stakes, irreversible decisions** where single-model bias is too costly: M&A, major fundraises, layoffs, strategic pivots, regulatory commitments.

Adapted from gstack's `/codex` cross-review pattern, generalized to **business memos** instead of code PRs.

## When to Run

- Before signing a term sheet
- Before announcing a layoff
- Before committing to a regulated market
- Before any decision where reversing costs > 6 months of company time
- When the boardroom vote was split or had a CRITICAL dissent

## Models Used (graceful degradation)

The command tries to invoke each available model in order:

1. **Claude** (primary, always available) — the boardroom's native voice
2. **Codex / OpenAI** (if `OPENAI_API_KEY` or `codex` CLI available)
3. **Gemini** (if `GEMINI_API_KEY` or `gemini` CLI available)

If only Claude is available, the command runs **Claude-only with adversarial mode** — same model, different prompt seeds — and clearly labels the output as single-model.

## Workflow

1. Read the memo / brief
2. Probe environment for available model CLIs / API keys
3. For each available model:
   - Send the memo with this prompt prefix:
     > "You are an independent C-suite reviewer. The following is a board memo from another company's boardroom. Identify the top 3 concerns, the top 3 supports, and your vote (APPROVE / REJECT / DEFER). Do not deferentially agree — assume the memo's reasoning is flawed until proven otherwise."
4. Collect three independent reviews
5. Reconcile: where do they agree? Where do they diverge?
6. Surface the divergences as questions for the founder

## Output Format

Saved to `~/.claude/cross-eval/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md`:

```markdown
# Cross-Eval: <memo title>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Memo reviewed:** <link>
**Models invoked:** Claude / Codex / Gemini (or noted fallbacks)

## Vote Tally
| Model | Vote | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Claude | APPROVE | High |
| Codex | DEFER | Med |
| Gemini | APPROVE | Low |

## Consensus Concerns (≥2 models flagged)
1. <concern> — flagged by Claude + Codex
2. <concern> — flagged by all 3

## Divergent Concerns (1 model flagged)
- <Codex only:> <concern> — worth a second look
- <Gemini only:> <concern> — likely noise, but check

## Consensus Supports (≥2 models endorsed)
1. <support>
2. <support>

## Recommendation
- 🟢 GO if 2+ models APPROVE and no CRITICAL concerns from any model
- 🟡 PAUSE if any model is DEFER or any concern is CRITICAL
- 🔴 STOP if 2+ models REJECT

## Open Questions for Founder
1. <question raised by divergence>
2. <question raised by divergence>
```

## Why This Matters

Single-model recommendations have systematic biases. Claude trends helpful and may under-weight risk. Codex (OpenAI) trends more cautious on emerging-market and regulatory topics. Gemini trends more cautious on technical scale claims. Disagreement is signal, not noise.

This is the **safety net before irreversibility** — not a replacement for outside counsel or a real board.

## Graceful Degradation

If only Claude is available:

```markdown
**Models available:** Claude only
**Mode:** ADVERSARIAL — running 3 independent Claude passes with different system prompts:
  1. Standard reviewer
  2. Devil's advocate (must find 3 critical concerns)
  3. Steelman (must find 3 strongest reasons to approve)

This is weaker than true multi-model. Treat the result as suggestive, not conclusive.
```

## Routing

- `/c-level-agents:decide` — if consensus is GO
- `/c-level-agents:freeze` — if consensus is PAUSE
- `/c-level-agents:boardroom` (re-run) — if consensus is STOP

## Related

- Skills: [`board-meeting`](${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/c-level-advisor/board-meeting/SKILL.md), [`executive-mentor`](../../../c-level-advisor/executive-mentor/)
- Inspiration: gstack's `/codex` cross-review pattern (adapted to business memos)

---

**Version:** 1.0.0