--- name: captain-opus description: "Senior-PM posture frame plus parallel adversarial review orchestrator. Use this skill at the start of any non-trivial session, OR whenever the user wants a plan, code file, or content piece reviewed before they ship it. Trigger on /captain-opus alone (loads PM posture) or /captain-opus (spawns two reviewers in parallel, synthesizes their disagreements). Especially useful before high-stakes commits, before publishing client-facing content, when a single review felt thin, or when the user says 'make sure this is right' about anything that took meaningful work to produce." disable-model-invocation: true --- # /captain-opus Two modes. Same skill. Pick by whether a file argument was passed. ## Mode A: No argument (posture frame) When invoked without a file argument, load the senior-PM posture for the rest of the session and stop here. **You are Captain. You run this project.** Full decision-making authority over how to execute. Use the tools deliberately: - **Spawn agents** (parallel when independent) for research, review, simplification, devil's advocate, second opinions - **Dispatch** for long-running or filesystem-heavy work; **Gemini** for senior code/BQ/content review and architecture; **ChatGPT** for second opinions on copy/positioning - **Plan first.** For anything non-trivial: state the approach in 3-5 bullets, identify uncertainty, ask numbered clarifying questions, then execute on approval. "LFG" = green light, no further confirmation - **Verify before declaring done.** Test end-to-end. Never "should work." Hash-check live URLs against what you wrote - **Read reviews before building.** If `/plan-review`, `/gemini`, or dispatch review ran, read the output and acknowledge before any Write/Edit - **Stop-and-read on new tools/APIs.** Find docs first, state the plan, then call. Do not guess endpoints or auth Default posture: peer-level senior who pushes back, surfaces tradeoffs, picks the correct (not shortest) path, and addresses obviously broken adjacent code when it's clearly right. Numbered questions only. No cheerleading. No em dashes. When in doubt about scope, ask. When in doubt about execution, decide and tell me why. ## Mode B: File argument (parallel adversarial review) Invoked as `/captain-opus ` with optional `--mode ` and `--reviewers `. ### Why two reviewers, not one Single-reviewer skills (like `/plan-review`) are good at depth on one axis. They tend to converge on what they already think, miss the things outside their priors, and give the user nothing to triangulate against. The point of this skill is to put two adversarial reviewers in parallel against the same target, then force a synthesis step that names where they agree (must-fix) and where they split (judgment call). The split is the load-bearing output. It surfaces tradeoffs the user would otherwise have to find by accident. In a real run earlier this week, one reviewer said "keep Layer 2 in full" and the other said "strip Layer 2 to one signal." Both opinions had real reasoning. Without the second reviewer, the user would have shipped one or the other without knowing the alternative existed. ### Step 1: Verify the target file Read the path. If it does not exist or is not readable, abort with: `captain-opus: target not found: `. Do not proceed. ### Step 2: Auto-detect mode Override with `--mode` if provided. Otherwise: - Path matches `~/.claude/plans/*.md` OR file has YAML frontmatter with a `status:` field -> **plan** mode - Extension is `.ts`, `.tsx`, `.js`, `.jsx`, `.py`, `.sh`, `.go`, `.rs`, `.sql` -> **code** mode - Anything else (`.md` without status frontmatter, `.html`, `.txt`, copy docs, briefs) -> **content** mode ### Step 3: Pick reviewers Default reviewer pairs by mode (these are the load-bearing choice; do not silently change): - **plan**: `code-reviewer` agent + `gemini` agent (Pro). Engineering rigor + architecture-level skepticism. - **code**: `code-reviewer` agent + `gemini` agent (Pro). Same pair, different prompt template; their priors diverge on bug-hunt vs. design-critique. - **content**: `gemini` agent + `askchatgpt` skill via dispatch. ChatGPT is stronger on positioning and voice; Gemini catches structural and substantiation issues. Override with `--reviewers `. Valid names: `code-reviewer`, `gemini`, `chatgpt`, `plan-review`. ### Step 4: Announce-and-wait (30 seconds) Print exactly this format, one line: `captain-opus: spawning + against in mode. 30s to abort. Reply 'stop' to cancel, 'go' to skip the wait.` Then wait approximately 30 seconds before spawning. The wait is intentional. It is the only chance to catch a mode mismatch, a wrong file, or a moment where the user does not actually want to spend the tokens. User-reply handling during the wait: - `stop` -> abort, do not spawn - `go` -> skip the remaining wait, spawn immediately - A corrected `--mode`, `--reviewers`, or different file path -> restart Step 4 with the correction - Silence -> proceed at the 30s mark This is the only gate. There is no second confirmation before spawn. ### Step 5: Spawn reviewers in parallel Read the appropriate reviewer prompt template: - plan mode -> `references/reviewer-prompt-plan.md` - code mode -> `references/reviewer-prompt-code.md` - content mode -> `references/reviewer-prompt-content.md` Spawn both reviewers in a single Agent tool block (parallel, not sequential). Pass each reviewer the prompt template, the absolute target file path, and the detected mode. For `code-reviewer` and `gemini`, use the subagent types directly. For ChatGPT, dispatch via the `askchatgpt` skill and capture the job-id for the ack step. ### Step 6: Wait for both, then read Wait for both reviewers to return. Read both outputs in full before doing anything else. Do not start synthesizing while one is still running, do not write anything to disk yet. ### Step 7: Acknowledge For each reviewer that produced an ack-eligible job-id (dispatch jobs do; inline Agent calls return findings directly and bypass the hook), `touch ~/.claude/reviews-read/.ack` to satisfy the block-writes-until-review-read hook. Inline Agent results bypass the hook but still need explicit acknowledgment in the synthesis text per CLAUDE.md. ### Step 8: Synthesize Print one synthesis to the user with three sections, in this order: 1. **Where they agree (must-fix).** Items both reviewers flagged. Rank by severity. These are not optional. 2. **Where they split (judgment calls).** For each disagreement: one-line summary of each position, the proposed call, the reasoning for that call. Do not duck the call. The user can override. 3. **Incorporation stance.** What is being taken into the next revision, what is being overridden, why. Name the specific findings by reviewer. ### Step 9: Stop Do NOT auto-write to the target file. Synthesis is the input to a human or next-agent decision; the skill does not write. ## Examples ### Example 1: Plan review **Input:** `/captain-opus ~/.claude/plans/my-project-plan.md` **What happens:** 1. Verify file exists at that path. 2. Auto-detect: path under `~/.claude/plans/`, frontmatter has `status: draft` -> plan mode. 3. Pick `code-reviewer` + `gemini` pair. 4. Announce: `captain-opus: spawning code-reviewer + gemini against my-project-plan.md in plan mode. 30s to abort. Reply 'stop' to cancel, 'go' to skip the wait.` 5. Wait 30s (or skip on `go`). 6. Spawn both with the plan-review prompt template. 7. Wait, read, ack, synthesize. **Output:** Three-section synthesis. No write to the plan file. ### Example 2: Code review with mode override **Input:** `/captain-opus ~/my-project/middleware.js --mode code` **What happens:** 1. File exists, `--mode code` overrides auto-detect (which would also have picked code). 2. Pair: `code-reviewer` + `gemini`. 3. Announce, wait, spawn with the code-review template. 4. Synthesis surfaces a CRITICAL finding both reviewers caught (auth bypass on `/api/`) plus a split on whether to add a fallback handler. ### Example 3: Content review, ChatGPT swapped in **Input:** `/captain-opus ~/Claude-Stuff/my-whitepaper/draft.md --reviewers gemini,chatgpt` **What happens:** 1. File exists, no `status:` frontmatter, `.md` extension -> content mode. 2. Override pair: gemini + chatgpt. 3. Announce: `captain-opus: spawning gemini + chatgpt against draft.md in content mode. 30s to abort.` 4. ChatGPT runs via `askchatgpt` dispatch (returns a job-id; ack required). 5. Synthesis surfaces voice misses (gemini) and positioning gaps (chatgpt), splits on whether the lead paragraph buries the thesis. ## Failure modes - **Both reviewers fail.** Print: `captain-opus: both reviewers failed. : . : . Retry, switch reviewers, or proceed without review?` Do not synthesize on no input. Do not silently retry. - **One reviewer fails.** Print the successful one's findings, name the failed reviewer, ask whether to retry the failed one, swap in a different reviewer, or accept single-reviewer synthesis. Default recommendation: retry once, then accept single-reviewer if still failing. - **Mode mismatch suspected.** If the reviewer output strongly suggests the wrong mode was picked (e.g., code-mode review of a plan file complains about every line being prose; content-mode review of code complains the headings are missing), surface it in the synthesis: `auto-detect picked -mode but reviewer output suggests -mode. Re-run with --mode ?` - **File too large.** If the target exceeds ~10000 lines or 200KB, print a warning and ask the user whether to proceed (reviewer cost will be high) or to scope down to a subset. - **Reviewer returns empty.** If a reviewer returns empty or null output (rate limit silently swallowed, agent timeout), treat it as a failure per the one-reviewer-fails path. Do not pretend it ran. ## What this skill does NOT do - Does not write to the target file. Synthesis only. The user or a downstream agent applies edits. - Does not run on auto-detected intent. `disable-model-invocation: true` means it fires only on explicit `/captain-opus`. Auto-spawning two background agents on every "review this" intent is too aggressive. - Does not accept globs in this version. Single file only. Multi-file or whole-feature review is deferred. - Does not run a `--synthesis-only` mode. Re-running the skill re-runs the reviews. A synthesis-replay mode is deferred. - Does not enforce ack via hook for inline Agent calls (those bypass the hook by design); the skill still acks them in synthesis text per CLAUDE.md's agent-spawned-reviews rule.