Cross Eval

# /cs:cross-eval — Multi-Model Consensus **Command:** `/cs:cross-eval <memo-or-brief>` Runs the same memo through multiple model providers and reconciles divergences. Use for **high-stakes, irreversible decisions** where single-model bias is too costly: M&A, major fundraises, layoffs, strategic pivots, regulatory commitments. Adapted from gstack's `/codex` cross-review pattern, generalized to **business memos** instead of code PRs. ## When to Run - Before signing a term sheet - Before announcing a layoff - Before committing to a regulated market - Before any decision where reversing costs > 6 months of company time - When the boardroom vote was split or had a CRITICAL dissent ## Models Used (graceful degradation) The command tries to invoke each available model in order: 1. **Claude** (primary, always available) — the boardroom's native voice 2. **Codex / OpenAI** (if `OPENAI_API_KEY` or `codex` CLI available) 3. **Gemini** (if `GEMINI_API_KEY` or `gemini` CLI available) If only Claude is available, the command runs **Claude-only with adversarial mode** — same model, different prompt seeds — and clearly labels the output as single-model. ## Workflow 1. Read the memo / brief 2. Probe environment for available model CLIs / API keys 3. For each available model: - Send the memo with this prompt prefix: > "You are an independent C-suite reviewer. The following is a board memo from another company's boardroom. Identify the top 3 concerns, the top 3 supports, and your vote (APPROVE / REJECT / DEFER). Do not deferentially agree — assume the memo's reasoning is flawed until proven otherwise." 4. Collect three independent reviews 5. Reconcile: where do they agree? Where do they diverge? 6. Surface the divergences as questions for the founder ## Output Format Saved to `~/.claude/cross-eval/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md`: ```markdown # Cross-Eval: <memo title> **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD **Memo reviewed:** <link> **Models invoked:** Claude / Codex / Gemini (or noted fallbacks) ## Vote Tally | Model | Vote | Confidence | |---|---|---| | Claude | APPROVE | High | | Codex | DEFER | Med | | Gemini | APPROVE | Low | ## Consensus Concerns (≥2 models flagged) 1. <concern> — flagged by Claude + Codex 2. <concern> — flagged by all 3 ## Divergent Concerns (1 model flagged) - <Codex only:> <concern> — worth a second look - <Gemini only:> <concern> — likely noise, but check ## Consensus Supports (≥2 models endorsed) 1. <support> 2. <support> ## Recommendation - 🟢 GO if 2+ models APPROVE and no CRITICAL concerns from any model - 🟡 PAUSE if any model is DEFER or any concern is CRITICAL - 🔴 STOP if 2+ models REJECT ## Open Questions for Founder 1. <question raised by divergence> 2. <question raised by divergence> ``` ## Why This Matters Single-model recommendations have systematic biases. Claude trends helpful and may under-weight risk. Codex (OpenAI) trends more cautious on emerging-market and regulatory topics. Gemini trends more cautious on technical scale claims. Disagreement is signal, not noise. This is the **safety net before irreversibility** — not a replacement for outside counsel or a real board. ## Graceful Degradation If only Claude is available: ```markdown **Models available:** Claude only **Mode:** ADVERSARIAL — running 3 independent Claude passes with different system prompts: 1. Standard reviewer 2. Devil's advocate (must find 3 critical concerns) 3. Steelman (must find 3 strongest reasons to approve) This is weaker than true multi-model. Treat the result as suggestive, not conclusive. ``` ## Routing - `/cs:decide` — if consensus is GO - `/cs:freeze` — if consensus is PAUSE - `/cs:boardroom` (re-run) — if consensus is STOP ## Related - Skills: [`board-meeting`](../../../skills/board-meeting/SKILL.md), [`executive-mentor`](../../../executive-mentor/) - Inspiration: gstack's `/codex` cross-review pattern (adapted to business memos) --- **Version:** 1.0.0