santa-method

Verifies generated output through dual independent review agents with an iterative fix loop.

Updated Mar 18, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/freedom909/real-estate-saas --skill santa-method-freedom909
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: santa-method
Source: https://github.com/freedom909/real-estate-saas/tree/main/.trae/skills/santa-method
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/freedom909/real-estate-saas --skill santa-method-freedom909

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? A single agent reviewing its own output shares the same biases and blind spots that produced the errors, so hallucinations, compliance violations, and factual mistakes slip into shipped content and production code. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Dual Independent Review: Two context-isolated reviewer agents evaluate output against an identical structured rubric, and both must pass before anything ships. - Convergence Fix Loop: Flagged issues are merged, fixed, and re-reviewed by fresh agents each round, with a max-iteration cap and human escalation on exhaustion. - Batch Sampling Mode: Verifies a 10-15% stratified sample of large batches, classifies failure patterns, and applies targeted fixes across the whole batch. - Use Case: Before publishing AI-generated technical documentation at scale, run each document through two independent reviewers checking factual accuracy, hallucination-free claims, and completeness, then auto-fix and re-verify until both pass. ## Quick Start Review this generated output using the Santa Method with two independent reviewers against a rubric covering factual accuracy, completeness, and compliance, then fix and re-verify until both pass.

Frequently Asked Questions about santa-method

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I verify AI-generated content for hallucinations before publishing?▼

Use dual independent review: spawn two reviewer agents with no shared context, give both the same rubric and output, and require both to return a PASS verdict. Flagged issues are fixed and re-reviewed by fresh agents until convergence.

What is multi-agent adversarial verification for LLM output?▼

It is a pattern where a generator produces output and two independent review agents evaluate it against an identical rubric. Because reviewers share no context, they break the correlated failure mode where one agent misses its own systematic errors.

How do I run parallel review agents in Claude Code?▼

Use the Agent tool to spawn two subagents concurrently, each receiving the task spec, the output, and the rubric. Subagents provide true context isolation, which is strictly superior to simulating reviewers inline in one conversation.

When should I not use dual-agent output verification?▼

Skip it for internal drafts, exploratory research, and tasks with deterministic verification such as build, lint, or test pipelines. It is designed for semantic checks like accuracy and compliance, not mechanical correctness.

How do I verify large batches of AI-generated content cost-effectively?▼

Use stratified sampling: run full verification on 10-15% of the batch with a minimum of 5 items, classify failures by type, apply targeted fixes to the whole batch, and re-sample until a clean sample passes.

Why do both reviewers keep finding new issues after fixes?▼

This is the infinite loop failure mode, mitigated by a max iteration cap of three rounds. If iterations are exhausted, the output escalates to a human reviewer with all collected issues attached.