Review board memos and strategy briefs with available Claude, Codex, and Gemini models. Compare concerns, supporting arguments, and votes, then turn disagreements into questions to resolve before committing to a major business decision.
/cs: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.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Command: /cs: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.
The command tries to invoke each available model in order:
OPENAI_API_KEY or codex CLI available)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.
"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."
Saved to ~/.claude/cross-eval/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md:
# 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>
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.
If only Claude is available:
**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.
/cs:decide — if consensus is GO/cs:freeze — if consensus is PAUSE/cs:boardroom (re-run) — if consensus is STOPboard-meeting, executive-mentor/codex cross-review pattern (adapted to business memos)Version: 1.0.0
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Audit web applications for accessibility issues against WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA, the web accessibility standards. Get framework-specific code fixes, contrast checks, verification steps, and reports, with options for automated checks in development pipelines.
Plan A/B tests that compare page variations, from headlines to pricing layouts. Define a hypothesis, choose success metrics, calculate sample size and duration, and prepare launch checks and results reports to support decisions.
Create paid ad headlines and body copy tailored to each platform's character limits. Use existing performance data to develop variations, explore new messaging angles, and check copy for length, quality, and potential rejection risks.
Review code changes from three critical perspectives: production failures, maintainability, and security. Get a consolidated report that ranks findings by severity and provides merge guidance, helping examine assumptions that an ordinary self-review may overlook.
Audit and improve content intended for citation in AI answers. Review evidence, author information, and structure, generate revised content and structured metadata, and keep a local record of observed citations across AI services.
Create signed records for consequential agent actions such as deployments, deletions, and payments. Decide which actions need evidence, record the agent, action, target, and policy, then verify the resulting certificate offline to detect later changes.