Tri-Model Review

Tri-model review routes through two external advisor CLIs, then synthesizes both outputs into one answer.

Use this when you want parallel external perspectives.

When to Use

• Backend/analysis + frontend/UI work in one request
• Code review from multiple perspectives (architecture + design/UX)
• Cross-validation where different models may disagree
• Fast advisor-style parallel input without full team runtime orchestration

Requirements

• Ensure you have configured the appropriate apx ask-* wrappers.
• If either wrapper is unavailable, continue with whichever provider is available and note the limitation.

How It Works

1. Decompose the request into two advisor prompts:
   - Analysis/architecture/backend prompt
   - UX/design/docs/alternatives prompt

2. Run both advisors via the canonical wrappers:
   - apx ask-codex "<prompt>"
   - apx ask-gemini "<prompt>"

3. Synthesize both outputs into one final response

Execution Protocol

When invoked, follow this workflow:

1. Decompose Request

Split the user request into:

• Architecture prompt: correctness, backend, risks, test strategy
• UX prompt: content clarity, alternatives, edge-case usability, docs polish
• Synthesis plan: how to reconcile conflicts

2. Invoke advisors via Bash

Run both advisors via the Bash tool:

apx ask-codex "<architecture prompt>"
apx ask-gemini "<UX prompt>"

3. Synthesize

Return one unified answer with:

• Agreed recommendations
• Conflicting recommendations (explicitly called out)
• Chosen final direction + rationale
• Action checklist

Fallbacks

If one provider is unavailable:

• Continue with available provider + synthesis
• Clearly note missing perspective and risk

If both unavailable:

• Fall back to a single-model answer and state external advisors were unavailable.

Verification

• [ ] Request was decomposed into distinct architecture and UX prompts before invoking advisors
• [ ] Both advisors were invoked via the canonical wrappers — or the missing provider was explicitly noted
• [ ] Synthesis lists agreed recommendations, explicitly called-out conflicts, the chosen direction with rationale, and an action checklist
• [ ] Any provider fallback was stated, including the missing perspective and its risk