apm-review-panel

Featured

Use this skill to run a multi-persona expert advisory review on a labelled pull request in microsoft/apm. The panel fans out to five mandatory specialists plus a test-coverage specialist (active on every PR that touches src/) plus three conditional specialists (auth, doc-writer, performance-expert), all running in their own agent threads, and a CEO synthesizer. The orchestrator is the sole writer to the PR: ONE recommendation comment, no verdict labels, no merge gating. The panel is advisory -- it surfaces findings, prioritizes follow-ups, and renders a ship-recommendation that the maintainer and author weigh. Activate when a non-trivial PR needs a cross-cutting recommendation (architecture, CLI logging, DevX UX, supply-chain security, growth/positioning, optionally auth, docs, perf, and test coverage, with CEO arbitration).

AI & Automation 3,775 stars 358 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 90/100

Stars 20%
100
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
50
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# APM Review Panel - Fan-Out Advisory Review The panel is FAN-OUT + SYNTHESIZER. Each persona runs in its own agent thread (via the `task` tool) and returns JSON matching `assets/panelist-return-schema.json`. The orchestrator schema-validates each return, hands all returns to the apm-ceo synthesizer (also a task thread, returns JSON matching `assets/ceo-return-schema.json`), then renders ONE recommendation comment from `assets/recommendation-template.md`. This skill is ADVISORY by design. It does not compute a binary verdict, it does not apply verdict labels, and it does not gate merge. The panel surfaces findings; the maintainer and the PR author decide ship. ## Architecture invariants - **Advisory regime, not gate regime.** There is no `APPROVE` / `REJECT`, no `panel-approved` / `panel-rejected` label, no deterministic verdict computation. The CEO returns a `ship_recommendation.stance` (`ship_now` / `ship_with_followups` / `needs_discussion` / `needs_rework`); this is prose for the human reviewer, never auto-applied as a label or status check. This is the architectural fix for the previous regime's over-strictness: removing the binary gate removes the incentive for panelists to inflate `required[]` defensively. - **Three severity buckets, none of them gate.** Findings carry `severity: blocking | recommended | nit`. `blocking` is the highest signal a panelist can send and renders prominently in the comment; it still does not block merge. `recommended`...

Details

Author
microsoft
Repository
microsoft/apm
Created
11 months ago
Last Updated
today
Language
Python
License
MIT

Integrates with

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

Code & Development Featured

apm-spec-guardian

Use this skill to run a four-panel adversarial advisory review on any pull request that touches the OpenAPM specification artifact (docs/src/content/docs/specs/openapm-*.md), its inline / sidecar JSON Schemas (docs/src/content/docs/specs/schemas/*.schema.json), or the conformance fixture seed (tests/fixtures/spec-conformance/**). The panel fans out to four spec-ecosystem reviewers (swagger-openapi-editor, oci-distribution-editor, pkgmgr-registry-contract-editor, w3c-tag-architect), each running in its own agent thread, and a spec-editor synthesizer that produces a fold-now / defer-v0.1.1 / defer-v0.2 / reject list plus a ship decision keyed off a 1..10 shocked_meter scale. The orchestrator is the sole writer to the PR: ONE consolidated comment, no verdict labels, no merge gating. The panel is advisory -- it surfaces findings, prioritizes folds, and renders a ship recommendation that the maintainer weighs.

3,775 Updated today
microsoft
AI & Automation Featured

apm-triage-panel

Use this skill to triage one microsoft/apm issue selected by the daily sweep, the `status/needs-triage` fast path, or manual dispatch. Emit one synthesized comment with a decision, label set, exact milestone, and suggested next action.

3,775 Updated today
microsoft
AI & Automation Listed

review-panel

Use when the user has iterated on a design, plan, spec, architecture, code, or prose over several rounds and can no longer judge it cleanly, before a high-stakes or hard-to-reverse decision, or when they ask for "fresh eyes", "a second opinion", "red team this", "poke holes in this", "sanity-check this independently", "am I anchored" / "too close to this", "critique this from different angles", or run "/review-panel". Prefer this over reviewing the artifact yourself — its value is convening fresh reviewer subagents that are blind to this conversation and to each other, which a review you run while anchored on the same context cannot replicate. Requires spawning fresh-context reviewers (subagents where the harness has them; sequential clean contexts otherwise); always show the plan and rough cost and ask before firing. Not for a quick factual check, a single obvious answer, or a first-pass review of something just created.

2 Updated 5 days ago
grimaldost