gossipcatofficial
A
licenseNot graded
qualityA
maintenanceEnables multi-agent code review with cross-verification of findings against source code, catching hallucinations and improving agent accuracy over time.
91 npm
41
MIT
gpt-cross-validator
by black940514
Related Servers
Alternatives to gpt-cross-validator
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceUses Claude as an independent second-model reviewer inside Codex, performing reviews on disposable Git snapshots with structured findings.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables Claude Code to leverage OpenAI models for expert code review, deep architecture analysis, and security audits, with automatic markdown report generation.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to get one independent reviewer that first reasons about a problem without seeing the proposed solution, then compares it against the revealed proposal and returns a compact verdict (KEEP/MODIFY/REPLACE/INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE) with risks, an alternative, and a falsification probe before committing to expensive decisions.3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables Claude Code to delegate tasks to OpenAI's Codex CLI (GPT-5.4) with structured execution traces, parallel execution, session persistence, and adversarial code review.15MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables Claude Code to submit code, diffs, plans, and security or edge-case questions to Codex, Gemini, and GPT-OSS for read-only review, verifying each quoted line against the real files so fabricated findings are filtered before Claude reads them. It also runs multi-family councils that surface agreement, falls back across models when quotas run out, and supports optional hooks that block git push until edits have been reviewed.104MIT
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct scopes: one critiques plans/designs while the other reviews code quality. Despite both using Gemini, the target artifact is unambiguously different, so an agent can easily select the appropriate tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow the consistent `<provider>_<verb>` pattern (gemini_critique, gemini_review), using lowercase and underscores. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server is minimal but each tool serves a specific validation type. While it doesn't reach the typical 3-15 range, the narrow scope of cross-validation makes the count borderline acceptable.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the two main artifact types (plans/designs and code) that would need independent validation. No additional validation types are implied by the server's purpose, so the surface is fully sufficient.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues