• Before publishing something high-stakes
• When you want multiple perspectives without running reviewers manually
• When you suspect different aspects need different kinds of attention
• When you're too close to the work to know what feedback you need

../../references/context-contract.md

• piece_type — essay, argument, explainer, narrative, etc.
• audience — general, specialist, insider
• stage — early draft, revision, near-final
• goals — if stated

.status.yaml

• Preferred reviewers
• Reviewers to exclude
• Past patterns

undefined

• [name] — [Why not relevant for this piece]
• [name] — [Why not]

Wait for user confirmation or modification.

1. Run all selected reviewers in parallel when the active platform supports parallel workers and the user's explicit panel request authorizes them.
   • On Claude, use the matching

     compound-writing:review:*

     subagent when available.
   • On Codex or another runtime, use the matching reviewer skill or an isolated worker with that lens.
   • Give each reviewer the draft plus the minimum relevant context.
   • Each reviewer returns its standard prose output independently.
2. Collect all outputs

[Spawn in parallel:]
- Task: nemesis-reviewer with draft
- Task: mom-reviewer with draft
- Task: hemingway-reviewer with draft
- Task: sorkin-reviewer with draft

• The draft
• Draft context from the active brief, instructions, metadata, or careful inference
• All reviewer outputs (full prose)

undefined

• Minimum: 3 reviewers (fewer than this, just run them individually)
• Recommended: 4-5 reviewers (good coverage without redundancy)
• Maximum: 8 reviewers (all of them—full stress test)

• hemingway — The prose reads clean; economy isn't the issue here
• hitchcock — Not a tension-driven piece
• vonnegut — Structure is solid; this needs polish not fundamentals

"His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s, a reel that hadn't worked since Reagan, hooks that had never caught anything but his own thumb."

• sedaris: "There's a joke hiding in the part about him never admitting he was wrong. You're circling it but won't commit."
• nemesis: "Your ending asks the reader to feel something you haven't set up. The 'I finally understood' move is unearned."

1. Restructure the opening — Three reviewers flagged this. Start on the boat, not before it.
2. Earn the ending — The emotional payoff needs setup. Show what you finally understood through a scene, not a declaration.
3. Decide on the tackle box — Genuine tension. Your call based on what you're optimizing for.

What specifically did you learn from him that you couldn't have learned from anyone else? Multiple reviewers noted you assert the relationship's importance without showing what made it irreplaceable.

undefined

• Note which reviewer is missing
• Proceed with available outputs
• Mention the gap in synthesis

• Infer what you can from the draft and request.
• State only assumptions that affect the panel or verdict.
• Do not create a status file merely to run the review.

• Ask for the draft path or slug to load
• Or ask them to paste the draft

cw-debate