agentleFS
Yeachan-HeoYeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus/skills/interrogate/SKILL.md

interrogate

Skill41k starsChanged 4 days agoMITView on GitHub

Adversarial pass over a diff or design: three reviewers on different models each try to break it — correctness, security, edge cases — findings merged by severity into a blocking verdict. For contested or high-risk changes.

73 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Trending

Quiet since January.thin dataabout the whole repository

Dec 2025: 0 mentionsJan 2026: 3 mentionsFeb 2026: 0 mentionsMar 2026: 0 mentionsApr 2026: 0 mentionsMay 2026: 0 mentionsJun 2026: 0 mentionsJul 2026: 0 mentionsAug 2026: 0 mentionsSep 2026: 0 mentionsOct 2026: 0 mentionsNov 2026: 0 mentions
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus repository that our weekly crawl found: only 3 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use principle-explain-the-number, make-bot-ui and 2 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • ianclearySkill

    principle-explain-the-number

    Apply before you trust, report, or act on a number you measured: a speedup, a regression, a throughput, a latency, or an eval result. Find what limits it, and rule out that it measured something other than the work you think.

    Also in 29 projects that use this

  • eryzerzSkill

    make-bot-ui

    Use when building a custom UI (page, dashboard, buttons) that should wake a Grok Bot over a webhook, when the user must provide a webhook sender key, or when exposing that UI on Tailscale.

    Also in 20 projects that use this

  • bnemaSkill

    setup-pstack

    Configure which Pi models pstack uses per role. Detects available provider/model specs and writes pstack's user configuration. Use for /setup-pstack, "configure pstack models", or changing pstack model choices.

    Also in 25 projects that use this

  • ianclearySkill

    poteto-help

    Guides users through pstack setup, /poteto-mode, and picking the skill, playbook, or principle for a task. Type /poteto-help with a question.

    Also in 14 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 73 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read team.roleRouting from the project config (.claude/omc.jsonc) or the user config (claude-omc/config.jsonc.

    line 45
  2. Distinctive:

    revise: only major or minor findings.

    line 90
  3. Distinctive:

    pass: no standing findings. Record the verdict with the reviewers' models named, in the reply.

    line 91
  4. Very specific:

    After the verdict is delivered, run omc team shutdown <team-name> --force (the name the startup snapshot printed) unconditionally — on …

    line 100
  5. Distinctive:

    Never count your own review as one of the three.

    line 108

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 73 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Interrogate

Three independent reviewers try to break the work before it ships. Diversity is the mechanism: reviewers on different models or provider families find different classes of defects, and agreement across them is high-signal. This is an adversarial lane on top of review, not a replacement for it.

When to use

  • a diff or design is contested, high-risk, or security-adjacent
  • work is about to ship and a single review pass is not enough evidence
  • the user asks to "stress-test", "red-team", or "try to break" a change

When not to use

  • routine changes with passing verification — review alone is enough
  • the deliverable is an answer, not an artifact under judgment

Phase 1 — Frame the target

Name exactly what is under interrogation: the diff (default), a design doc, or an API contract. State the invariants the change must preserve; reviewers attack those first.

Phase 2 — Seat the panel

Spawn three reviewers in one message, in the background, each read-only:

  • seat the panel as a diverse-model panel — different provider families find different defect classes, and agreement across them is high-signal. Read team.roleRouting from the project config (.claude/omc.jsonc) or the user config (claude-omc/config.jsonc; omc config prints the effective values) and collect up to three distinct provider families in canonical role order, filling any remaining seats from the default families — claude, codex, gemini — not already seated, and say which family each seat got. When no routing config exists, fall back to OMC_TEAM_WORKTREE_MODE=detached omc team --no-decompose 1:claude,1:codex,1:gemini "<the framed target, the invariants, and one lens per seat>", or in-session Task dispatches to oh-my-claudecode:code-reviewer and oh-my-claudecode:security-reviewer on different models — the team command needs the task text; pass target, invariants, and lens allocation as that task
  • each reviewer gets the same target by path, the invariants, and one lens: correctness, security and trust boundaries, or edge cases and failure modes
  • wait for every reviewer to reach a terminal state and collect its output before Phase 3 — the team route starts workers asynchronously, and merging before they finish reports an empty panel; a worker that stalls past the stated interval is named as missing, not silently dropped. Keep worktrees and team state alive through judging, and run omc team shutdown <team-name> --force (the name the startup snapshot prints; --force skips the confirmation prompt) only in the final cleanup step after verification, as the arena skill sequences it
  • instruct each to prove every finding with a run against the real code — a failing test, a repro script, or command output that shows the wrong behavior; for a design or plan, a prototype or a probe of the current tree — and to leave out anything it did not run. No findings is a valid result. Findings come back as {severity: blocker|major|minor, claim, evidence, location} where the evidence is the command and the output it printed — a finding without a run is dropped

Phase 3 — Merge

You own the merge. Collect the panels' findings, re-run each finding's command yourself, and keep only what reproduces and breaks the invariants; merge findings that share a root cause, and rank the rest by severity. A claim two reviewers disagree on is a question for the code, not a vote — resolve it by reading or running. In the reply, say how many findings each reviewer produced and how many did not survive the rerun, so a clean panel reads as a result, not a silence.

Phase 4 — Verdict

  • block: any blocker finding stands after re-reading the evidence. The work goes back to the author lane with the finding list; nothing merges.
  • revise: only major or minor findings. Fix-forward is safe.
  • pass: no standing findings. Record the verdict with the reviewers' models named, in the reply.

The verdict is advisory to review and to the human; it never merges or gates delivery on its own. When interrogation blocks, say what would change the verdict.

Phase 5 — Cleanup

After the verdict is delivered, run omc team shutdown <team-name> --force (the name the startup snapshot printed) unconditionally — on pass, revise, block, and error paths alike. The panel's workers, tmux panes, team state, and detached worktrees must not outlive the interrogation. Keep the target checkout intact; only team-managed resources are cleaned.

Rules

  • Never count your own review as one of the three.
  • A reviewer that cannot run (missing provider, agent limits) is named in the verdict as missing; two reviewers still produce a verdict, one does not.
  • Findings are about the artifact, not the author; keep the tone clinical.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

Reviews can't be read right now.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.