panel

A review panel that asks Codex and Grok to independently assess the same decision or question, then compares their conclusions.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it for blind consultation on technical or project decisions, with shared constraints and acceptance criteria.
Why use it?
It provides separate opinions on a defined brief before a final recommendation is made.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/okisdev/claude-code-fusion/panel
Any agent
npx skills add okisdev/claude-code-fusion --skill panel
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/okisdev/claude-code-fusion

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 23 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,272 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00023 $0.01272
Opus 5 $0.00012 $0.00636
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00254
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00127

Measured 2d ago against content hash bcd63da8ffeb, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

panel scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

plugins/fusion/skills/panel/SKILL.md · 57 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Convene a blind multi-model panel on the decision below. In the standard external panel, every engine receives the same neutral brief, works with no knowledge of the other panelists, and you adjudicate the returned verdicts.

Decision or question to adjudicate: $ARGUMENTS

Compose the brief:

  • Write ONE neutral, self contained brief containing: the decision or question, the constraints that bound the answer, the relevant file paths, and explicit coverage or acceptance criteria for what a good answer must address. Collection review verifies this consultation brief; it does not need a shell verification command. Its first line is the single routing header required by policy and includes lane: panel, grok-role: independence (one of the four permitted Grok roles), and the explicit acceptance criteria; the shared routing header is also included in the identical prompt sent to Codex.
  • Never include a candidate answer, a leaning, any prior model opinion, or any context from this conversation. The panel is blind; a brief that hints at a preferred answer is invalid.
  • End the brief with: "This is a consultation. Analyze and recommend; do not modify any files."
  • Keep the exact brief in the Agent calls and pass it directly as each Agent prompt. Do not create a transport file, temp brief, or plugin-data payload with Write. Companion adapters own any private staging required by their transports. Panel consultations do not use isolated implementation worktrees or a Codex only --cwd prefix because either would violate the identical brief invariant.
  • If the request is too thin to build a self contained brief, ask the user for the missing constraints before launching.

Launch the panel:

  • In one tool message, invoke grok:grok-rescue and codex:codex-rescue with the identical brief as their direct prompt. Use plain grok-rescue or codex-rescue if the namespaced form is not found. Do not set run_in_background; parallel tool calls provide overlap while each result remains owned and collected.
  • Never set background mode on the Codex Agent and never add --background to its brief. Complexity, expected duration, and model choice do not change this rule.
  • Add fusion:deep-reasoner as a third parallel track only when the user asks for a three way panel or the question hinges on Claude native long horizon reasoning. Its prompt must use the fusion-brief: v1 isolated envelope.

Degrade when a track is unavailable:

  • A panel never runs with fewer than two tracks. Two isolated instances of the same model still tend to outperform one in published multi-model deliberation results; the independent synthesis carries much of the lift.
  • If a track fails to launch because its agent type does not exist (plugin not installed) or returns an unavailability line such as grok unavailable: ..., do not abort the panel: rerun the missing track as fusion:deep-reasoner (plain deep-reasoner if the namespaced form is not found) with the identical brief, and note the substitution in the final synthesis.
  • If neither external engine is available, run a Claude only panel: two fusion:deep-reasoner (plain deep-reasoner if the namespaced form is not found) tracks with explicitly different lenses, and tell the user the panel ran without external engines. This is the only exception to the identical brief rule. Derive two direct prompts by adding lens: risk first and lens: simplest viable answer to otherwise identical fusion-brief: v1 envelopes.
  • Availability failures are infrastructure, not verdicts; never present a missing engine as agreeing or disagreeing.

Wait and stay blind:

  • Wait for every track to return before synthesizing anything.
  • Never paste one engine's output into another engine's prompt. This applies to follow ups too: a follow up to an engine may reference only the original brief and that engine's own prior output.

Adjudicate with a structured analysis first:

  • Before writing any prose verdict, produce a judge analysis as a JSON object with exactly these fields: consensus (claims the engines agree on), contradictions (disputed claims, each side named), partial_coverage (points only one engine addressed), unique_insights (per engine), blind_spots (questions no engine addressed). Attribute every claim in every field to its engine by name.
  • Never average the verdicts or count them as equal votes. In the standard two track panel, the configured Codex frontier lane is the default deep lead on long horizon correctness and architecture. The configured Grok lane is an independent cross check weighted on large context factual verification and terminal or operational pragmatics. These are lane priors, not substitutes for evidence; stronger concrete evidence wins a disputed point regardless of which engine produced it.
  • Treat agreement as a strong accept signal and consensus as high confidence. Adjudicate each contradiction according to its subject and supporting evidence, applying these weights when both standard tracks return.
  • If a clean analysis is impossible (malformed outputs, irreconcilable framing), skip it and present each engine's verdict verbatim with attribution, stating that adjudication was skipped. Raw verdicts beat a forced synthesis.

Read the full file on GitHub · 57 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 57 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A bcd63da8ffeb

Subscribe to this mod's changes

panel is a skill published in the GitHub repository okisdev/claude-code-fusion (3 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,272 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

agent-framework-py-release

Use when cutting a Python release for the microsoft/agent-framework monorepo. Triggers on "bump py versions", "cut a python release", "prepare release PR for python", "release py packages", "bump python to X.Y.Z", or similar requests to bump Python package versions and prepare a release PR. Handles all four lifecycle…

microsoft/agent-framework · 103 tokens

python-package-management

Guide for managing packages in the Agent Framework Python monorepo, including creating new connector packages, versioning, and the lazy-loading pattern. Use this when adding, modifying, or releasing packages.

microsoft/agent-framework · 43 tokens

foundry-hosted-agent-validation

Step-by-step process for validating a Python Foundry hosted agent sample (under python/samples/04-hosting/foundry-hosted-agents/) end to end — running it locally (native runtime and azd ai agent run) and after deploying it to an Azure AI Foundry project with azd. Use this when asked to validate a hosted agent sample.

microsoft/agent-framework · 82 tokens

python-feature-lifecycle

Guidance for package and feature lifecycle in the Agent Framework Python codebase, including stage meanings, feature-stage decorators, feature enums, and how to move APIs from one stage to the next.

microsoft/agent-framework · 43 tokens

build-and-test

How to build and test .NET projects in the Agent Framework repository. Use this when verifying or testing changes.

microsoft/agent-framework · 26 tokens

python-code-quality

Code quality checks, linting, formatting, and type checking commands for the Agent Framework Python codebase. Use this when running checks, fixing lint errors, or troubleshooting CI failures.

microsoft/agent-framework · 40 tokens