ai-jury

Convene a cross-vendor multi-agent review jury: native coding-agent CLIs from
different vendors review the same diff, PR, or issue, cross-examine each other,
verify, and reach one verdict — a chair's synthesis or a panel vote.

Install once. Run a cross-vendor review jury anywhere.

Most "multi-model review" tools call models at the API level. This one drives each
vendor's native CLI agent — claude (Claude Code), codex (OpenAI Codex CLI), and
agy (Google Antigravity) — plus an optional free, offline local / open-weight model
(via Ollama or any OpenAI-compatible server), so every reviewer runs in its own native
environment with its own tooling. Each agent runs headless; the orchestrator owns the
round structure.

        ┌──────── round 1 ────────┐   ┌─ round 2 (adaptive) ─┐   ┌─ verify + synthesis ─┐
diff ──▶ claude codex agy qwen (review) ▶ each rebuts the      ▶ chair verifies, then   ▶ verdict
         (parallel, independent)           others' findings       consolidates             + report

Highlights: free/offline local reviews · secure by default (reviewers run
sandboxed/read-only) · jury init setup · debate + verification · chair verdict
or a panel vote · review a PR, a diff, or an issue · live / full-transcript
output · CI gating · incremental review · suggested patches · large-diff chunking.
Configure once in jury.toml; mix cloud CLIs and a local model however you like.

Why

Different models miss different things. Running them as an adversarial panel — each
seeing the others' findings and arguing — surfaces more real issues and filters more
false positives than any single reviewer. The research-backed lever is vendor
heterogeneity, not more rounds — and a free local/open-weight model adds a different
perspective at zero marginal cost, so a jury needn't mean paying three vendors.
See docs/architecture.md and
docs/feasibility.md.

Install

pipx install ai-jury         # once published; until then:
pipx install git+https://github.com/berkayturanci/ai-jury.git
# dev: pip install -e ".[dev]"

Requires Python 3.11+. Then scaffold a config with jury init (it detects your
installed agents and local models). You need at least one reviewer: an agent CLI
(claude, codex, agy) or a free local model via Ollama; missing/unreachable ones
are skipped. gh is needed for --pr / --post.

For development, install the dev extras (linting, build, and coverage tooling):

pip install -e ".[dev]"   # or: make install

Coverage

Test coverage is measured with coverage.py
— a dev-only dependency. The runtime stays standard-library-only.

Measure it locally with one command:

make coverage          # run the suite under coverage, print the report, write htmlcov/
# or, without make:
./scripts/coverage.sh

Either entry point runs:

python3 -m coverage run -m unittest discover -s tests
python3 -m coverage report

Threshold. The minimum total coverage is 99%, configured once in
pyproject.toml under [tool.coverage.report] fail_under and enforced by a
dedicated coverage job in CI (.github/workflows/ci.yml, Ubuntu / Python
3.13). CI fails if total coverage drops below that floor. The gate runs in a
single job rather than across the whole test matrix to keep CI cheap and free of
cross-OS path noise.

Measurement method. Branch coverage is enabled (branch = true) and the
package is measured by import name (source = ["ai_jury"]).

Exclusions. Intentionally-untested paths are excluded so the number stays
honest:

• src/ai_jury/__main__.py is omitted (a thin python -m entry shim).
• Lines matching these patterns are excluded from the count: pragma: no cover,
  if __name__ == "__main__":, raise NotImplementedError, if TYPE_CHECKING:,
  and abstract-method decorators.

Add # pragma: no cover to any new line that is genuinely not worth testing.

Live smoke tests

The default test suite uses mock adapters only, so the real native CLIs
are never invoked — a breakage in argv format, stdin handling, or output
capture in the concrete adapters would go unnoticed until a live run. The
optional live smoke tests close that gap: they run a tiny, cheap review
prompt (a two-line diff) through each installed real adapter and assert the
run succeeds (ok, non-empty output, error_code is None).

They are opt-in and skipped entirely unless JURY_LIVE=1 is set, so
they never run in make test or in CI.

Requirements for a meaningful live run:

• The agent CLIs you want to exercise must be installed and on your PATH
  (claude, codex, agy) and authenticated for non-interactive use.
• Any agent whose CLI is not installed is skipped individually, so a
  machine with only claude still exercises that one adapter.

Run them:

make live-smoke
# equivalent to:
JURY_LIVE=1 PYTHONPATH=src python3 -m unittest discover -s tests -v

They are intentionally excluded from the CI matrix (no CLIs, auth, or
secrets are available there) and are meant to be run locally before a release
or when touching the adapter layer.

Review-quality benchmark

A small, directional benchmark (benchmark/) measures whether a jury's
findings line up with hand-authored expectations for a handful of fixture diffs
(obvious logic bug, subtle boolean-guard bug, missing error handling, a
false-positive trap, and a docs-only change).

It is not a universal quality claim. The default offline mode is
deterministic and runs with no live CLIs: it scores each fixture's
recorded sample findings against an expected spec, which validates the
scorer and the recorded baselines — it does not measure live review quality.
(--mock is deliberately not used per fixture: the mock adapter emits a fixed
finding regardless of the diff, so it would be fake signal.) Only the opt-in
live mode (JURY_BENCH_LIVE=1) runs real agents and measures quality.

make benchmark                                          # offline, deterministic
JURY_BENCH_LIVE=1 PYTHONPATH=src python3 -m ai_jury.benchmark  # live (opt-in)

The lift, measured. A config-sweep (benchmark/sweep.py) runs the same
labeled fixtures with each model solo vs the panel vs the full jury —
isolating what the panel adds, without the result hinging on which single model
you'd pick. On a live four-vendor run (v1.1.0): every model missed seeded
bugs run alone (best: Claude/Qwen 67%; Codex/Agy 33%, all at 100% precision),
while the four-vendor panel caught 100% of them. Vendor diversity is the
robust lever (recall); the precision/verification effect is within noise at
N=5 and not claimed. Directional, reproducible — full table + method in
docs/benchmark-results.md.

See benchmark/README.md for the fixture list, the
expected/recorded schema, and the match/scoring rules.

Usage

Set up — detect your agents and write a jury.toml:

jury init                     # scaffold (detects agents + local models)
jury init --wizard            # guided setup: numbered, skippable questions
jury init --preset balanced   # from a preset: offline | fast | balanced | thorough

Review a pull request:

jury --pr 123                  # review a GitHub PR
jury --pr 123 --auto           # auto-depth: scale rounds/verify to the diff
jury --pr 123 --decision vote  # verdict by panel vote instead of a single chair
jury --pr 123 --post           # post the verdict back as a PR comment

Review an issue — completeness & clarity (READY / NEEDS-INFO / UNCLEAR):

jury --issue 42
jury --issue 42 --decision vote   # tie-break order: NEEDS-INFO > UNCLEAR > READY
jury --issue 42 --live --post     # stream + post each step to the issue thread

Watch it happen — live in your terminal:

jury --pr 123 --live                            # stream each step as it lands
jury --pr 123 --transcript                      # full play-by-play (reviews, debate, reasoning)
jury --pr 123 --theater                         # animated "deliberation" view
jury --pr 123 --theater --theater-style pixel   # …as a pixel-art room (truecolor terminal)

Post to the PR:

jury --pr 123 --post-progress             # one sticky comment, updated each round/chunk
jury --pr 123 --post --post-mode phased   # Round 1 / debate / decision as separate comments
jury --pr 123 --suggest-patches           # also emit inspectable patches for verified findings
jury --pr 123 --incremental               # review only changes since the last run

Local diffs & offline:

git diff origin/HEAD... | jury --diff-file -   # review the current branch
jury --diff-file examples/sample.diff          # review a diff file
jury --rounds 1                                # independent review only (no debate)
jury --mock --diff-file examples/sample.diff   # offline demo, no live CLIs

Inspect:

jury config show   # the effective resolved config + its source
jury --doctor      # readiness check + actionable next steps

A sample report is in docs/example-run.md. For a real
four-vendor run where the jury reviews its own repository (with honest notes on
false positives and the local model's contribution), see
docs/example-live-review.md.

Theater mode — --theater

An opt-in, animated deliberation view of a live run: the models sit around
a table and take turns speaking as the run moves through review → debate →
verify → decision, then reach a decision together — by panel vote, or recorded
by the chair. There is no judge; the jurors deliberate with each other.

It renders in two styles, both live in your terminal. An opt-in pixel-art
room (--theater-style pixel; needs a truecolor + unicode terminal):

…and the default flat ANSI scene (--theater):

It is presentation-only — it reads the same per-phase on_event stream the
report does, so it mirrors the real run (jury --mock --theater gives a
deterministic, offline demo). It adapts to PR vs issue and chair vs vote, shows
debate rounds / early-stop / disputes, seats many jurors (with a compact roster
fallback), and degrades to the plain --live step stream on a non-interactive
terminal (or, for pixel, to the flat scene without truecolor/unicode).
Details: docs/theater-design.md.

Output formats

Use --format {markdown,json,sarif} (default markdown) to control what is
written to stdout or --output. --metadata-json is independent and always
writes the metadata block to its own file, and the --ci exit code is computed
the same way regardless of format.

jury --diff-file changes.diff --format json  -o report.json
jury --diff-file changes.diff --format sarif -o report.sarif

JSON

A structured report with these top-level keys:

Key	Description
schema_version	Version of this JSON schema (currently 1.0).
metadata	Run metadata (agents, rounds, context mode, redaction stats, wall-clock proxy).
findings	All raw findings; each carries severity, file, line, claim, evidence, suggested_fix, confidence, reviewer.
consensus	Per consensus group: representative finding, agreement count, reviewers, bucket, verification_status.
verdicts	Verification verdicts (file, line, claim, status, reasoning).
verdict	The chair synthesis text, if any.

The output is deterministic for a deterministic run (e.g. --mock) and contains
only legitimate finding fields — never raw diff or prompt text.

SARIF

Valid SARIF 2.1.0
suitable for GitHub code scanning. Results are drawn from consensus group
representatives (falling back to raw findings). Each result maps to a
physicalLocation (artifactLocation.uri = file, region.startLine = line when
known), message.text = the claim, and a stable ruleId of jury/<severity>.
Severity maps to the SARIF level as:

Severity	SARIF level
critical, major	error
minor	warning
nit, info	note

Upload to GitHub code scanning:

The standard way is the github/codeql-action/upload-sarif GitHub Action.
Results then show up in the PR's Code scanning view and the repo's
Security tab. The job needs security-events: write (to upload) and
contents: read:

name: Jury code scanning

on:
  pull_request:

permissions:
  contents: read
  security-events: write   # required by upload-sarif

jobs:
  jury:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
        with:
          fetch-depth: 0   # need the base commit to diff against

      - uses: actions/setup-python@v5
        with:
          python-version: "3.13"

      - name: Install jury
        run: pip install ai-jury   # or: pip install .

      - name: Produce SARIF from the PR diff
        run: |
          git diff "origin/${{ github.base_ref }}...HEAD" > pr.diff
          jury --diff-file pr.diff --format sarif -o jury.sarif

      - name: Upload to code scanning
        uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@7211b7c8077ea37d8641b6271f6a365a22a5fbfa # v4.36.0
        with:
          sarif_file: jury.sarif

This uses a diff file so no agent CLIs or gh token are required to generate
the SARIF. To review the PR via --pr instead (which shells out to gh), set
GH_TOKEN: ${{ github.token }} on that step and ensure the agent CLIs are
installed and authenticated on the runner.

As a manual alternative, upload an existing SARIF file with gh:

gh api -X POST repos/OWNER/REPO/code-scanning/sarifs \
  -f commit_sha="$SHA" -f ref="$REF" \
  -f sarif="$(gzip -c report.sarif | base64 -w0)"

Configuration — jury.toml

Don't hand-write it the first time — scaffold one with jury init, which
detects your installed agents and writes a valid config:

jury init                              # interactive: pick agents, rounds, chair
jury init --wizard                     # guided: numbered questions for the most-used settings (skippable)
jury init --preset balanced            # one-command preset: offline | fast | balanced | thorough
jury init --list-agents                # show known agents + availability
jury init --list-models                # list local (Ollama) models you can pick
jury init --agents claude,codex,qwen --rounds 2   # non-interactive / scriptable

It detects which agent CLIs are installed and, for a local agent, discovers the
models on your Ollama/OpenAI-compatible server so you can pick one in the
interactive prompt (e.g. gemma:2b, deepseek-coder:6.7b). It uses the
secure-by-default agent templates and refuses to overwrite an existing file
without --force. The resulting jury.toml:

[jury]
rounds = 2          # 1 = review only, 2 = review + debate
chair  = "claude"   # which agent synthesizes the verdict
timeout = 300       # per-agent wall-clock seconds (a hung CLI is killed at this bound)
parallel = true

[[agent]]
name = "claude"
vendor = "anthropic"   # anthropic | openai | google
command = "claude"
# model = "claude-opus-4-8"
extra_args = ["--output-format", "text", "--disallowed-tools", "Edit,Write,NotebookEdit,Bash", "--dangerously-skip-permissions"]

Override per run with --rounds, --chair, --config.

The config is validated on every run. Check it without running a review with jury --config-validate (exit 0 valid, 2 invalid); add --strict-config to turn warnings into errors. See the parameter reference for every field, allowed value, and default (CLI flags + jury.toml), and docs/configuration.md for the validation behaviour (hard errors vs. warnings) and other config semantics.

Local / open-weight reviewer (free, offline)

A panelist can run on a local open-weight model via any OpenAI-compatible
server (Ollama, llama.cpp llama-server, vLLM, LM
Studio). Use vendor = "local" with an endpoint and a model — it talks plain
HTTP (stdlib only, no extra deps) and participates in every round and the
consensus exactly like a CLI agent:

[[agent]]
name = "qwen"
vendor = "local"
model = "qwen2.5-coder:7b"
endpoint = "http://localhost:11434/v1"   # default; Ollama's OpenAI-compatible API

# One-time: install Ollama and pull a coding model.
ollama pull qwen2.5-coder:7b
# Review with zero cloud cost, fully offline:
jury --diff-file changes.diff --config local-only.toml

Trade-off (be honest): a small local model is a weaker reviewer than a
frontier CLI — its value is added diversity (the load-bearing advantage for a
jury) and zero marginal cost, not parity. The sweet spot is mixing one
local panelist with one or two cloud CLIs: more vendor heterogeneity, lower spend.
An unreachable server fails fast with a typed connection_error (the run
continues with the other agents). See the
benchmark note for the
measured diversity contribution.

Repository review policy (optional)

A repository under review may ship an optional, separate review policy that
tells the jury what to care about for that project (high-risk paths, focus
areas, forbidden output, severity overrides, a checklist, and doc links). This is
distinct from the runtime jury.toml: it configures what reviewers should
care about, not how the agent runs.

It is auto-discovered from .jury/policy.toml or jury-policy.toml, or
pointed at explicitly:

jury --mock --diff-file examples/sample.diff --policy .jury/policy.toml

The policy is maintainer-authored, so it is injected into the review prompts as a
clearly separated, trusted section (distinct from the untrusted diff/context
fences). Missing policy files are allowed (no-op); a malformed one is a clear
error. See examples/policy.toml for a generic example
and the architecture docs for the
schema.

Data flow / privacy

What gets sent to each agent is governed by [jury.context] in
jury.toml (and overridable per run on the CLI):

[jury.context]
mode = "diff-only"      # "diff-only" (default) or "expanded"
redact_secrets = true   # scrub recognized secrets before sending (default on)

Context modes — what leaves your machine for each reviewer:

• diff-only (default): agents receive only the diff. Any surrounding PR
  context (title/body) is dropped. This is the smallest data surface.
• expanded: agents additionally receive the PR title/body context (when
  reviewing with --pr) to improve review quality. Use this only when you trust
  the configured agent endpoints.

Either way, no source files outside the diff, no repository history, and no
environment variables are read or sent.

Secret redaction — before anything is sent to an agent, the diff (and any
context) is passed through a redactor (src/ai_jury/redaction.py)
that masks recognized secrets: PEM private keys, AWS access keys, GitHub/OpenAI
tokens, Bearer tokens, and generic api_key/secret/token assignments
(including base64-style values). Each hit becomes [REDACTED:<kind>]. Redaction
is on by default.

Controls:

• jury.toml: [jury.context] mode = "diff-only"|"expanded" and
  redact_secrets = true|false.
• CLI (override config for a single run): --context-mode diff-only|expanded,
  and --redact / --no-redact.

Posting to GitHub (--post-summary, --post-inline) sends the rendered report
/ comments to the GitHub API; use --dry-run with --post-inline to preview the
inline payload without any network call. See SECURITY.md for the
full data-flow and redaction reference.

No telemetry (by default and always) — this project collects and sends no
telemetry and no analytics, not now and not behind any opt-in flag. The
tool never phones home. The only network activity is performed by the agent CLIs
you explicitly configure (and gh for --pr / --post*).

Diagnostics — jury --doctor

Run a local readiness check that surfaces common configuration problems:

jury --doctor                          # print a readable report
jury --doctor --write diagnostics.json # also write the report as JSON

The report covers the tool version, Python version, OS, a config summary
(rounds, chair, context mode, enabled agents), which agent CLIs are available on
your PATH, and any detected config warnings. The output is safe to share:
secret-like config values are redacted via the same redactor used for prompts,
and the report never includes the diff under review or any agent output.
Diagnostics are built locally and only written to disk when you pass
--write PATH.

Use it from another project (skill)

A Claude Code skill ships in skill/ai-jury/.
Install it as a plugin from this repo (it doubles as a single-plugin marketplace):

/plugin marketplace add berkayturanci/ai-jury
/plugin install ai-jury@ai-jury

Or drop skill/ai-jury/ into a project's
.claude/skills/ manually. Either way the agent can convene the jury on demand, and
it composes with existing review workflows: run the jury for a cross-vendor pass,
then act on the consensus findings. For other platforms (Codex, Antigravity, CI) and
their support status, see the platform support matrix.

For a concrete consumer: keel's review
gate (step s7, auto-enabled on its tier-3 risk class) runs ai-jury as its
cross-vendor jury — fail-soft, a no-op when ai-jury isn't installed, so keel
never hard-depends on it. keel's optional
keel-visual run
visualizer surfaces the jury on the review step when a run used it.

How it works

Module	Responsibility
config.py	Load jury.toml (or built-in default)
adapters.py	One adapter per vendor CLI; turns a prompt into a headless subprocess
orchestrator.py	Round structure: review → debate → synthesis (agents run in parallel)
prompts.py	The three prompt templates
report.py	Render the run as one markdown report
github.py	gh-based PR diff in / comment out

Report format contract

The markdown report is the tool's user-facing output and a contract for
downstream skill/workflow consumers, so it changes only deliberately.
tests/test_report_golden.py renders the report for several scenarios (full
jury run, single-round, verified-finding, failed-agent, missing-agent) and
compares each against a committed snapshot in tests/golden/*.md. Unintended
formatting drift fails CI; an intentional change shows up as a reviewable
fixture diff. Durations (the only non-deterministic token) are normalized to
0s before comparison. Regenerate fixtures after an intentional change with
UPDATE_GOLDEN=1 PYTHONPATH=src python3 -m unittest tests.test_report_golden.
See docs/report-format.md for details.

Prior art & how this differs

This is a known pattern, not a new invention. The closest project is
Magpie (multi-vendor CLI review + debate, with a
benchmark
showing debate lifts bug detection to ~80%); see also
agent-jury,
the-jury, and Mozilla.ai's
Star Chamber.
The jury/courtroom metaphor shows up in research too — e.g.
VulTrial (ICSE 2026), which casts
prosecutor / defense / judge / jury LLM agents at vulnerability detection.
ai-jury aims to be the smallest drop-in version: stdlib-only Python, a
single jury.toml, and a Claude Code skill that snaps into an existing repo's review
workflow. See the ecosystem comparison & capability matrix for how
it differs from hosted, API-level, and other native-CLI tools, and
docs/feasibility.md for the supporting research.

Status

Active (v1.1.0). The full pipeline runs end-to-end with the real CLIs and the offline
--mock path is covered by tests. Shipped: structured findings + tiered consensus
(consensus / majority / single-reviewer), a verification pass that drops false positives,
chair verdict or panel vote (--decision vote), PR / diff / issue review
(--issue, with READY / NEEDS-INFO / UNCLEAR verdicts), live play-by-play (--live)
and full-transcript / verbose output, anonymized debate, adaptive early-stop,
severity-gated CI exit codes, secure-by-default sandboxing, run budget/retries, large-diff
filtering + chunking, an optional result cache, incremental review, suggested patches,
comment-command triggering, a local / open-weight adapter (free, offline), and
jury init scaffolding (with an opt-in --wizard). See
docs/architecture.md and the
milestones.

The phased plan and how to pick up a session's worth of work is in ROADMAP.md;
issues are tracked under milestones.

Security & the Codex sandbox

The jury performs read-only review orchestration — it sends a diff to each agent CLI and collects their feedback; it does not apply edits.

The Codex adapter pipes the prompt on stdin (codex exec with no positional prompt) so non-interactive runs never hang waiting for input, and defaults extra_args to ["-s", "read-only"] — a secure-by-default sandbox. The diff is fetched by the jury (gh), not by codex, so the reviewer only needs to read its prompt and print findings; a prompt injection in the diff can't make it write files, run shell, or reach the network. The agy agent runs under --sandbox, and claude under a write-tool denylist, for the same reason.

Need codex to write or reach the network for your flow? Widen extra_args for the codex agent in jury.toml (e.g. -s workspace-write). See docs/security.md for details.

CLI compatibility contract

The jury command is this project's public API. The surfaces below are
stable and are locked by tests/test_cli_contract.py (including a
width/color-pinned snapshot of jury --help under tests/golden/) so
accidental changes are caught in review.

Stable flags (names, short aliases, and semantics), grouped by intent:

• Input: --pr, --issue, --repo, --diff-file
• Depth: --rounds, --max-rounds, --early-stop / --no-early-stop,
  --auto / --no-auto, --verify / --no-verify
• Budget / reliability: --total-timeout, --phase-timeout, --retries
• Large diffs: --max-diff-bytes, --chunk / --no-chunk, --exclude,
  --include
• Context & privacy: --context-mode {diff-only,expanded},
  --redact / --no-redact
• Config / policy: --config, --policy, --chair, --seed, --mock,
  --strict, --config-validate, --strict-config
• Output: -o / --output, --write, --metadata-json,
  --format {markdown,json,sarif}, --decision {chair,vote},
  --transcript / --no-transcript, --verbose, --live, -q / --quiet
• GitHub posting: --post-summary / --post, --post-inline,
  --post-progress, --post-mode {single,phased}, --dry-run, --label
• CI gating: --ci, --fail-on
• Cache & incremental: --cache, --clear-cache, --cache-dir,
  --incremental
• Patches: --suggest-patches, --patches-out
• Misc: --doctor, --version, -h / --help

A version-independent test (test_documented_flags_match_parser_exactly)
asserts the documented flag set and the parser's actual long options stay
exactly in sync in both directions, so a new flag can't be added without being
documented and a documented flag can't silently disappear.

Stable error messages and exit codes:

Condition	Behavior
No input source given	exits non-zero with error: provide one of --pr, --issue, --diff-file (or --diff-file - for stdin)
Empty diff	exits non-zero with error: empty diff — nothing to review
--post-summary with no postable target (e.g. --diff-file; it works with --pr or --issue)	exits non-zero with error: --post-summary requires --pr
--post-inline without --pr (PR-only; also --post-progress, --label, --incremental)	exits non-zero with error: --post-inline requires --pr
Unknown flag / bad arguments	argparse exits with code 2
--version	prints jury <version> and exits 0
Successful review (no --ci)	exits 0
--ci with blocking findings remaining	exits non-zero (see ci.evaluate_ci)

Stable report headings (substrings other tooling may parse):
AI Jury, Chair verdict, Round 1 (and subsequent Round N).

Policy: Any breaking change to the surfaces above — renaming or removing a
flag, changing an error message or exit code, or altering a report heading —
requires a CHANGELOG.md entry describing the break. When the change is
intentional, regenerate the help snapshot with
UPDATE_GOLDEN=1 PYTHONPATH=src python3 -m unittest tests.test_cli_contract.
The help-snapshot exact match is pinned to Python 3.13 argparse formatting; the
flag-presence checks run on all supported versions (3.11–3.13).

Documentation

• Parameter reference — every CLI flag and jury.toml key with allowed values and defaults.
• Configuration behaviour & validation — validation, budgets, adaptive rounds, large-diff handling, and the cache.
• Positioning — mission, what makes it different, principles, and non-goals.
• Cookbook — copy-paste recipes for local, PR, advisory-comment, CI, mock, and assistant workflows.
• Architecture — components, round structure, adapters, supported platforms.
• Ecosystem comparison — capability matrix vs hosted / API-level / native-CLI tools.
• Feasibility & prior art — research grounding and verified CLI invocations.
• Platform support matrix — where you can install/run the jury and how.
• Skill packaging & install — install/version the review jury as a reusable skill artifact.
• Release readiness checklist — the bar before a public release.
• Report format contract — the golden-file snapshot tests and how to regenerate them.
• SECURITY.md — data-flow and secret-redaction reference.
• Agent-readable: llms.txt (concise) and llms-full.txt (full reference).

License

MIT — see LICENSE.