py-review-orchestrator

Coordinate hierarchical Wave 1 and Wave 2 code reviews across BioETL projects.

1|Updated Dec 1, 2025
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/SatoryKono/BioactivityDataAcquisition --skill py-review-orchestrator
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: py-review-orchestrator
Source: https://github.com/SatoryKono/BioactivityDataAcquisition/tree/main/docs/skills/local/py-review-orchestrator
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/SatoryKono/BioactivityDataAcquisition --skill py-review-orchestrator

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Manual, multi-wave code reviews across BioETL projects are error-prone and slow, leading to missed issues and inconsistent quality checks.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Wave-based reviews: Orchestrates hierarchical Wave 1 and Wave 2 reviews with explicit sector dependencies to ensure comprehensive QA.
  • Consolidated reporting: Aggregates findings into reports/review/FINAL-REVIEW.md for executive visibility and traceability.
  • Governance alignment: Enforces scoring thresholds and alignment with BioETL governance and orchestration profiles to standardize quality checks.

Quick Start

Instruct the agent to run the hierarchical review workflow against a target BioETL project and generate reports/review/FINAL-REVIEW.md.

Frequently Asked Questions about py-review-orchestrator

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I automate multi-wave code reviews for BioETL projects?▼

Automating BioETL code reviews involves orchestrating hierarchical Wave 1 and Wave 2 evaluations with delegated sub-reviews to surface issues comprehensively. This workflow enforces governance alignment and aggregates findings into a consolidated final report for executive visibility.

What is a hierarchical code review workflow in quality assurance?▼

A hierarchical code review workflow coordinates multi-wave evaluations, executing Wave 1 and Wave 2 assessments with explicit sector dependencies. This structured approach standardizes quality checks, enforces scoring thresholds, and consolidates findings into traceable final reports.

How do I consolidate scattered code review findings into one final report?▼

Consolidating code review findings requires aggregating delegated sub-review results into a centralized markdown file like FINAL-REVIEW.md. This ensures executive visibility, traceability, and alignment with standardized scoring thresholds across the project.

Can I enforce standardized scoring thresholds during automated code reviews?▼

Yes, enforcing standardized scoring thresholds is achieved by aligning the review orchestration with established governance profiles. This standardizes quality checks across hierarchical Wave 1 and Wave 2 reviews, ensuring consistent issue detection.

What is the best way to handle cross-team references in code review orchestration?▼

Handling cross-team references effectively requires a review orchestrator that enforces alignment with governance profiles during hierarchical evaluations. This ensures cross-team consistency and surfaces issues accurately across delegated sub-reviews.

Why are manual multi-wave code reviews error-prone and how does orchestration help?▼

Manual multi-wave code reviews are error-prone due to slow processing and inconsistent quality checks across complex projects. Orchestration solves this by automating hierarchical Wave 1 and Wave 2 reviews, enforcing standardized scoring thresholds, and consolidating results automatically.