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.