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
Most recently taken up by
- caidanw/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- thensls/nsls-builder-toolkittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecodeedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- endqwerty/endstacktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MammadovEshgin/clean-code-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- tristanphvn/keeltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Who's talking about Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus
- A Hacker News story“Sisyphus Now Lives in Oh My Claude”Hacker News · Jan 11, 2026 · 52 points
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode“Silent update security issue”GitHub · Jan 10, 2026 · 1 reactions
- anthropics/claude-plugins-official“feat: Add oh-my-claude-sisyphus multi-agent orchestration plugin”GitHub · Jan 12, 2026
The biggest 3 of 3 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.
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.
ianclearySkillprinciple-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
eryzerzSkillmake-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
bnemaSkillsetup-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
ianclearySkillpoteto-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
Other versions73 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41k99% same
Wrote their own version · 72
- backnotprop/pstack★ 3.8ksame name
- moeru-ai/xsai★ 667same name
- savannahfeder/agentbox★ 376same name
- jtaroreh/agystack★ 128same name
- uzairansaruzi/p3-stack★ 126same name
- dsebban/skills★ 71same name
- overextended/skills★ 22same name
- TheOnlyFusionCube/potetos-for-everyone★ 21same name
- creedants/pstack-t3★ 18same name
- painhardcore/pstack★ 18same name
62 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository90 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- docs/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- src/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- docs/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- commandsSkill
- agent-doc-disciplineSkill
- ai-slop-cleanerSkill
- architectSkill
- architecture-surveySkill
- arenaSkill
- ask-navigatorSkill
- askSkill
- autopilotSkill
- autoresearchSkill
- babysitSkill
- benchmark-checklistSkill
- blast-radiusSkill
- broSkill
- cancelSkill
- configure-notificationsSkill
- correctSkill
- create-formal-verification-skillSkill
- create-verification-skillSkill
- debugSkill
- deepinitSkill
- deep-interviewSkill
- diagramSkill
- drydockSkill
- executeSkill
- external-contextSkill
- figure-it-outSkill
- fix-ciSkill
- fix-merge-conflictsSkill
- get-pr-commentsSkill
- graphSkill
- harborSkill
- hillclimbSkill
- howSkill
- hudSkill
- intentSkill
- in-your-own-wordsSkill
- ketchupSkill
- ketchup-videoSkill
- launchSkill
- loftSkill
- maintain-formal-verification-skillSkill
- maintain-verification-skillSkill
- mapSkill
- minimal-code-disciplineSkill
- minimal-prose-disciplineSkill
- modelsSkill
- omc-doctorSkill
- omc-setupSkill
- personal-modeSkill
- omc-planSkill
- principlesSkill
- project-session-managerSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Very specific: line 45
Read team.roleRouting from the project config (.claude/omc.jsonc) or the user config (claude-omc/config.jsonc.
- Distinctive: line 90
revise: only major or minor findings.
- Distinctive: line 91
pass: no standing findings. Record the verdict with the reviewers' models named, in the reply.
- Very specific: line 100
After the verdict is delivered, run omc team shutdown <team-name> --force (the name the startup snapshot printed) unconditionally — on …
- Distinctive: line 108
Never count your own review as one of the three.
“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.
Files
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 —
reviewalone 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.roleRoutingfrom the project config (.claude/omc.jsonc) or the user config (claude-omc/config.jsonc;omc configprints 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 toOMC_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-sessionTaskdispatches tooh-my-claudecode:code-reviewerandoh-my-claudecode:security-revieweron 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.
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.

