Summary
Formalize the result aggregation step when multiple review agents return findings, producing a deduplicated, severity-ranked summary.
Motivation
When running /pr-review-toolkit:review-pr, 3-5 agents return independently. Currently results are manually aggregated in the conversation. A structured aggregation pattern would:
- Deduplicate overlapping findings across agents
- Rank by severity (critical > important > suggestion)
- Provide a single actionable summary with file:line references
- Track which agent found what for attribution
Inspired by the multi-agent-orchestration community skill's result aggregation patterns.
Proposed Implementation
Add an aggregation step to pr-review-toolkit:review-pr that:
- Collects all agent results
- Parses findings into a common schema (severity, file, line, description, agent)
- Deduplicates by file+line proximity
- Outputs structured summary (Critical/Important/Suggestions/Strengths)
Could be a new agent (pr-review-toolkit:aggregator) or logic in the review-pr command.
Effort
Low — pattern is well understood, just needs formalization.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary
Formalize the result aggregation step when multiple review agents return findings, producing a deduplicated, severity-ranked summary.
Motivation
When running
/pr-review-toolkit:review-pr, 3-5 agents return independently. Currently results are manually aggregated in the conversation. A structured aggregation pattern would:Inspired by the multi-agent-orchestration community skill's result aggregation patterns.
Proposed Implementation
Add an aggregation step to
pr-review-toolkit:review-prthat:Could be a new agent (
pr-review-toolkit:aggregator) or logic in the review-pr command.Effort
Low — pattern is well understood, just needs formalization.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code