agentleFS
AgentWorkforceAgentWorkforce/relay/.agents/skills/review-fix-signoff-loop/SKILL.md

review-fix-signoff-loop

Skill1.1k starsChanged 51 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when writing Agent Relay or Ricky workflows that must loop review, fix, and validation with fresh agent context until independent signoff agents, typically Claude and Codex, both agree the work is comprehensively complete. Covers fresh-context iterations, repairable gates, dual reviewer verdict contracts, iteration-count reporting, PR signoff comments, and blocked-state handling.

1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 25: 0 new projectsWeek of Nov 1: 0 new projects
Sep 2026Oct 2026Nov 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Most recently taken up by

Who's talking about AgentWorkforce/relay

The biggest 5 of 21 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 21

Talked about on GitHub and Hacker News (21 times).

On GitHub · 20

15 more on GitHub

On Hacker News · 1

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈8

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 5

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this pattern for high-stakes implementation workflows where a normal "implement, test, review once" flow is not enough.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Run deterministic preflight before agents start.

    line 14
  3. Very specific:

    Write preflight evidence to .workflow-artifacts/<workflow>/iteration-N/preflight.md.

    line 18
  4. Distinctive:

    Use Codex workers for code changes unless the codebase has a reason to prefer another CLI.

    line 20
  5. Very specific:

    Add a deterministic implementation-reconcile gate that checks required files, expected API/UI/runtime surfaces, migrations, generated …

    line 24
  6. Very specific:

    Use failOnError: false, then route the captured output to a repair owner.

    line 28
  7. Distinctive:

    Use capture -> fix -> rerun for typecheck, targeted tests, integration or E2E tests, and regression checks.

    line 30
  8. Very specific:

    Write BLOCKED_NO_COMMIT.md only for true external blockers.

    line 33
  9. Distinctive:

    Run fresh-context signoff reviews.

    line 34
  10. Distinctive:

    Start a new workflow run, new agent names, or otherwise new agent contexts for each loop iteration.

    line 35
  11. Distinctive:

    Run Claude and Codex signoff reviews independently over the same post-validation repo state.

    line 36
  12. Distinctive:

    If either reviewer finds issues or is blocked, run a Codex fix pass and start a new fresh-context review iteration.

    line 40
  13. Very specific:

    Write a final SIGNOFF.md that includes iteration count, validation evidence, Claude rationale, Codex rationale, remaining risks, and …

    line 43

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Purpose

Use this pattern for high-stakes implementation workflows where a normal "implement, test, review once" flow is not enough. The workflow must keep repairing and re-reviewing until independent signoff agents agree the spec is fully wired end to end.

Pair this with writing-agent-relay-workflows for SDK syntax and relay-80-100-workflow for deterministic validation gates.

Required Shape

  • Run deterministic preflight before agents start.
  • Confirm repository root, required specs, declared write scope, credentials needed for PR comments, and whether commit/push/PR creation is in scope.
  • For cross-repo or package-release work, write a scope matrix before implementation: repositories, branches, PRs, packages, providers/features touched, published versions, consuming package manifests, lockfiles, and expected downstream bumps.
  • Probe the CLIs used by later agent steps. For Codex, codex login status is not enough; run a tiny codex exec --ephemeral --json --sandbox read-only -m <supported-model> prompt and fail early with a clear re-login instruction if it cannot return the expected token.
  • Write preflight evidence to .workflow-artifacts/<workflow>/iteration-N/preflight.md.
  • Implement with scoped owners.
  • Use Codex workers for code changes unless the codebase has a reason to prefer another CLI.
  • Split backend, frontend, desktop, tests, docs, or infrastructure into explicit non-overlapping ownership areas.
  • Each worker writes a durable summary artifact with changed files and commands run.
  • Reconcile before validation.
  • Add a deterministic implementation-reconcile gate that checks required files, expected API/UI/runtime surfaces, migrations, generated artifacts, and untracked files with git status --short -- <paths>.
  • For multi-provider changes, reconcile against the scope matrix: every touched provider/package must be classified as implemented, dependency-only, intentionally-deferred, or not-applicable, with proof. Do not let "we only bumped the package I remembered" pass this gate.
  • For package-release flows, reconcile producer and consumer state: npm view <pkg> version, package manifests, lockfile resolved tarballs/integrities, and npm ls <pkg> from every consuming workspace.
  • For CI failures, map each failing job to its exact local command or documented non-local equivalent. Distinguish similarly named gates (for example handler coverage vs acceptance route coverage) and replay the one that actually failed.
  • Use failOnError: false, then route the captured output to a repair owner.
  • Run repairable validation.
  • Use capture -> fix -> rerun for typecheck, targeted tests, integration or E2E tests, and regression checks.
  • Include exact failing CI commands when available before broader "nearby" checks. A nearby green gate is supporting evidence, not proof that the reported CI failure is fixed.
  • Red validation output is input for a repair agent, not an immediate workflow failure.
  • Write BLOCKED_NO_COMMIT.md only for true external blockers.
  • Run fresh-context signoff reviews.
  • Start a new workflow run, new agent names, or otherwise new agent contexts for each loop iteration.
  • Run Claude and Codex signoff reviews independently over the same post-validation repo state.
  • Reviewers must read specs, diff, validation logs, artifacts, and actual files.
  • Break only on dual signoff.
  • The loop may exit only when both reviewers write the exact satisfied verdict and final deterministic acceptance is green.
  • If either reviewer finds issues or is blocked, run a Codex fix pass and start a new fresh-context review iteration.
  • Make the Codex fix pass a non-interactive one-shot worker (preset: 'worker') with a file_exists verification for its durable report. Do not rely on interactive PTY idle detection or /exit for loop progress.
  • Report final signoff.
  • Write a final SIGNOFF.md that includes iteration count, validation evidence, Claude rationale, Codex rationale, remaining risks, and artifact paths.
  • Include the final scope matrix with every repository/package/provider row signed off, deferred with owner/date, or marked not applicable. For release flows, include published and consumed versions.
  • Post the same report to the PR. Resolve the PR from an explicit env var first, then from gh pr view.

Verdict Contract

Use a strict text contract so deterministic gates can parse the result:

VERDICT: COMPREHENSIVELY_SATISFIED | FINDINGS | BLOCKED
why_passed: required when VERDICT is COMPREHENSIVELY_SATISFIED
end_to_end_wiring_verified: required when VERDICT is COMPREHENSIVELY_SATISFIED
deterministic_evidence: required when VERDICT is COMPREHENSIVELY_SATISFIED
scope_matrix_verified: required when VERDICT is COMPREHENSIVELY_SATISFIED for cross-repo/provider/package work
remaining_risks: required when VERDICT is COMPREHENSIVELY_SATISFIED
finding_id: stable-id when VERDICT is FINDINGS
severity: blocker | high | medium | low
file: path
issue: concrete gap
fix_required: exact change needed
test_required: deterministic proof needed
evidence: commands, files, or spec clause

Scope Matrix

Create a machine-readable and human-readable matrix before the first fix pass for work that spans repositories, packages, providers, or CI gates. Keep it updated every iteration.

repo | branch | PR | package/provider/surface | expected change | producer version | consumer version | files expected | gates required | status | evidence | owner

Fresh Context Implementation

Prefer an outer loop that starts a new Agent Relay workflow run per iteration:

for (let iteration = 1; ; iteration += 1) {
  await runIteration(iteration, runStamp); // new workflow name, channel, and agent names
  clearStartFromAfterResumedIteration();
  if (hasDualSignoff(iteration)) {
    writeAndPostSignoffReport(iteration);
    break;
  }
}

Codex Fixer Reliability

For review-fix loop steps, prefer this shape:

.agent(`codex-review-fixer-${suffix}`, {
  cli: 'codex',
  model: CodexModels.GPT_5_4,
  preset: 'worker',
  role: 'Review-finding fixer. Repairs valid findings and hardens tests/proofs.',
  retries: 2,
})
.step('fix-review-findings', {
  agent: `codex-review-fixer-${suffix}`,
  dependsOn: ['dual-signoff-gate'],
  task: `Read iteration artifacts. Fix every valid finding, rerun relevant checks, and write ${dir}/review-fix-report.md.`,
  verification: { type: 'file_exists', value: `${ROOT}/${dir}/review-fix-report.md` },
})

PR Signoff Comment

Final signoff should be both a durable artifact and a PR comment.

gh pr comment "$PR_NUMBER" --body-file .workflow-artifacts/my-workflow/pr-comment.md

Blocked State

Do not spin forever when progress is impossible. If agents identify a true external blocker, write:

.workflow-artifacts/<workflow>/iteration-N/BLOCKED_NO_COMMIT.md

Common Mistakes

  • Reusing the same reviewer context every loop. Start a new run or new reviewer agents for each iteration.
  • Letting a reviewer write NO_ISSUES_FOUND without pass rationale. Require the full verdict contract.
  • Treating green tests as signoff. Green deterministic gates are required evidence, not a substitute for fresh review.
  • Hard-failing the first red validation gate. Capture it, repair it, then rerun.
  • Posting a PR comment before both signoff agents agree on the same final state.
  • Forgetting to count iterations. The final report must say how many loops it took.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

Reviews can't be read right now.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.