Hand a coding or review task to a cross-vendor lane — a cheap, non-Claude agent that does the work for you. Use this INSTEAD OF shelling out to any CLI: it picks the vendor, injects the correct per-vendor permission flags, captures all output synchronously, and reports a real status. Do NOT run agy/devin yourself in Bash — the raw CLIs take DIFFERENT per-vendor flags (pass the wrong one and a build silently makes ZERO edits yet exits 0), and hand-driven background calls flush output late (a finished call looks empty for tens of seconds). This tool is the only robust path.

First call list — it needs no setup, confirms cross-vendor is enabled, and shows each vendor's selectable_models + default_model. If dispatch/review return a disabled error, cross-vendor is OFF: run nucleus onboard once (one-time), then retry.

Actions: dispatch - Hand a task to a cross-vendor lane. params: {vendor, prompt, artifact_ref, mode?, model?, expect_paths?, to?} REQUIRED: vendor ∈ 'agy'|'devin', prompt, artifact_ref. mode ∈ 'write'|'read' (default 'write'): write = the vendor CHANGES things (edit files, run commands, build/fix). read = the vendor only LOOKS and REPORTS (analyze/summarize); no file changes. When unsure use 'write': a read task still works in write mode, but a write task silently does NOTHING in read mode. model? — optional. Defaults to the vendor's verified model (agy → gemini-3.1-pro-high, devin → glm-5.2). These are ALREADY the defaults, so omitting model is sufficient; pass it only to be explicit or to override. The response echoes model_id — read model_id (NOT model_family) to confirm which model ran. A cross-wired model (e.g. glm-5.2 with agy) is rejected with the valid ids named. artifact_ref — a commit SHA / PR# / file path to bind the result to. No commit yet (a from-scratch build)? Pass the repo-relative path you will write, e.g. src/foo.py. expect_paths? — optional list of file paths you expect the vendor to change. If you pass them and the vendor changes none, status comes back NOT success ("no_files_touched") even if it narrated success. Without expect_paths, success means only that the vendor produced output — not that it edited anything, so ALWAYS confirm with your own git diff. (Paths are checked in the nucleus server process's working dir; pass paths valid there.) You never pass CLI flags — the tool injects the right permissions per vendor. Example (build): action="dispatch", params={"vendor":"devin","prompt":"", "artifact_ref":"src/foo.py","mode":"write","model":"glm-5.2", "expect_paths":["src/foo.py"]} review - Independent, different-model verdict on pasted code / a diff. params: {content, ref?, vendor?, model?, to?} content REQUIRED (paste the code/diff inline). Default vendor agy (Gemini, model gemini-3.1-pro-high) — a genuinely different model from the devin/GLM builder, so the review is diverse. Read-only, edits nothing. Returns a terse two-line verdict. For a devin/GLM second opinion pass vendor='devin'. Example: action="review", params={"content":"", "model":"gemini-3.1-pro-high"} list - Show vendors, their selectable_models + default_model, the mode vocabulary, and whether cross-vendor is enabled. Needs no setup — call it first.

A green result is a hypothesis until you verify it on your own shell (zero-trust). Read the response's status and success: 'ok' = produced output; 'empty_output' / 'no_files_touched' / 'timed_out' / 'error' come back success=false — NOT done. (If NUCLEUS_ENVELOPE is on, gate on the INNER success flag, not the envelope's ok.)

Two caveats from real use:

• SECRET HYGIENE: vendor OUTPUT is best-effort secret-redacted (Bearer/JWT/API-key patterns -> ; the count is in the response redacted field). This is a BACKSTOP, not a guarantee — never put credentials in a prompt, and the tool CANNOT scrub a file the vendor writes itself, so review any vendor file-writes near secrets yourself before trusting them.

• REVIEW SEES ONLY WHAT YOU PASTE: 'review' (and 'dispatch') cannot read the repo, a diff, or any file — they judge only the text in your params. Paste the real code/diff or the reviewer will confidently critique things it cannot see. For a whole PR, paste the actual diff, not a description of it.