review-loop-autopilot
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Drive prompt → review → verify → fix → re-review to APPROVE autonomously, but stop dead at outward actions. Activates when running a review/fix loop unattended, when deciding whether to use an unattended --auto mode, and before any push / PR / merge / publish.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- branch-guardSkill
- cross-model-reviewSkill
- empirical-firstSkill
- orchestrator-verifySkill
- worktree-isolateSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 29
STOP at every outward action.
≈ “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.
Files
Review-loop-autopilot
Drive the gated loop to APPROVE on your own, but stop dead at outward actions. The unattended mode skips the mandatory audit — treat it as the risk-accepting exception.
Contract
Run the loop autonomously: prompt → cross-model review → orchestrator audit → fix → re-review, repeating until APPROVE, with a hard stop at every outward action (push / PR / merge / publish). The audit step is mandatory each iteration. The fully-unattended mode (do <stage> --auto, and --auto --flip) forwards a failed review straight to fix/revise with no audit step — so it is NOT protocol-compliant and is used only when that risk is explicitly accepted.
When to trigger
- You have an APPROVE target and want to converge without a human between every micro-step.
- You are choosing between driving stages one at a time and an unattended
--autorun. - You hit a push / PR / merge / publish — stop and get explicit sign-off.
- You want to set reviewer effort or an iteration cap for the run.
Protocol
- Drive single stages:
do plan,do run, etc. — one stage, with an eyeball on the result. - After each review, run the orchestrator audit (see orchestrator-verify) before any fix — every iteration, not just at a flip. Local rule if that skill is unavailable: for each Critical/Important finding, open the cited
file:line, classify it confirmed / theoretical / false-positive, record the classification inaudit-iter<n>.md, and forward only the confirmed scope to the fix. - Loop prompt → review → audit → fix → re-review until APPROVE; cap iterations (default 3) so a non-converging loop forces a human decision.
- Calibrate reviewer effort to budget: high effort for a single deep review, medium for wide batches; detect usage caps by exit code, not by grepping output.
- Switch to alternating author/reviewer only late (polish-class findings), never during architectural churn.
- STOP at every outward action. Push / PR / merge / publish each require explicit OK, re-authorized per session for destructive forms.
Anti-patterns
- Auto-pushing or auto-merging at the end of a loop — outward actions are always gated.
- Treating
--auto/--auto --flipoutput as if it were audited — those modes skip the mandatory verification. - Running an uncapped loop with no iteration ceiling.
- Flipping author/reviewer during an architectural pivot instead of after convergence on small findings.
Worked micro-example
The compliant gated loop, with the hard stop:
do run <task-id> # author implements
→ cross-model review # reviewer returns NEEDS WORK + citations
→ orchestrator audit # re-read each finding, classify, write audit-iter<n>.md
→ do fix <task-id> # apply only the verified scope
→ re-review # APPROVE
STOP → push / open PR # requires explicit human OKThe --auto form collapses the middle into review→fix with no audit — convenient, but it is the risk-accepting exception, not this loop.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
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.

