Total Review
Workflow
-
Launch both reviewers in parallel as two bb threads (default). Follow
/nagent,/bb-cli, and each reviewer skill:- One
fable-reviewworker (Fable 5 Max 1M). - One
gpt-reviewworker (GPT 5.6 Sol Max). - Follow each reviewer skill exactly: neutral prompt, broad review scope, detailed findings on critical/serious issues, concise plain-English final report.
- Reuse this thread's environment so both see the same files.
- If the user names another harness (Cursor Task, cmux, Codex CLI, etc.), use that for both instead.
- One
-
Wait for both to finish (
bb thread waiton each, unless another harness was requested). Do not start triage until both reports are back. -
Merge and triage. Read both reports in full. Then:
- Combine and deduplicate findings; an issue reported by both counts once.
- Assess each finding: is it a real bug or risk, or a style preference, theoretical edge case, or non-issue? Agreement alone does not prove an issue is real.
- Keep only issues that matter.
-
Output to the user — clear and very concise:
- A numbered list of real issues, one line each: what it is + where.
- Mark which reviewer(s) found each:
[both],[fable], or[gpt]. Issues found by both go first. - One short line at the end: how many findings were dropped as overthinking.
- Then ask the user: approve fixing these, or adjust the list.
-
On approval, fix and ship. Fix only approved issues. Then stage, commit with a clear message, and push to GitHub using the standard ship workflow.
Rules
- Keep every step's output short and in plain English.
- Show the merged shortlist by default; provide full reviewer reports only if the user asks.
- Never fix an issue before the user approves the shortlist.

