agentleFS
sreejithramansreejithraman/SreeStack/skills/review-fix-loop/SKILL.md

review-fix-loop

Skill1 starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review and fix a change through independent T3 review rounds. Use before handing off behavior or agent-procedure changes, or when asked to review and fix a branch, PR, or local diff.

10 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Run each selected assessment as a T3-owned task through Orchestration, using the shared review brief.

    line 46
  2. Distinctive:

    Use Review evidence to validate task/output identity, read receipts, and source citations, then archive the original report and receipt …

    line 55

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Review Fix Loop

The parent coordinates rounds. Orchestration owns model defaults, delegation, recovery, and the general handoff. Review assesses one snapshot; Review Sweep validates and fixes findings. The caller owns commits, publication, replies, and merging.

Prepare

Resolve the original base once using Review. Gather the complete snapshot, requirements, and verification evidence with the canonical review brief.

Choose coverage in this order, honoring explicit user requests:

ChangeRequired assessment
Ordinary prose or wording only, with no procedure changeParent review
Shared contracts, risky logic, multiple behaviors/authors, substantial code or instruction workflowsPrimary, Ponytail, and Thermo, even for a small diff
Remaining small behavior or agent-procedure changeOne independent primary reviewer

For behavior or agent-procedure changes, add a separate Adversarial assessment when the combined change is substantial: it changes a shared contract or ownership boundary, introduces interacting behaviors across modules, redesigns a multi-step workflow, or alters security, data integrity, concurrency, retries, partial failure, migrations, or recovery. Broad implementation or instruction rewrites also qualify. Judge the changed behavior and consequences, rather than line count or file count alone. Record the decision and a one-sentence reason in the brief. Keep required coverage through fix rounds against the original base; expand it if fixes introduce a new trigger. When a plausible material consequence remains uncertain, include Adversarial.

Apply review assignments for the criteria, model mapping, additional draws, provider references, and skip policy. Finish preparation when scope, proof, and assignments are recorded.

Review, settle, repeat

  1. Run each selected assessment as a T3-owned task through Orchestration, using the shared review brief. Await the required assessments and all additional reviews that have not been skipped.
  2. Recheck the snapshot before accepting results. If it moved, cancel obsolete tasks, retain useful observations as unverified claims, and return to step 1 with a refreshed snapshot against the original base. End this step there; superseded assessments do not satisfy coverage. For a matching snapshot, check the reports' assigned-criteria coverage, including unread inputs or missing assessments. Use Review evidence to validate task/output identity, read receipts, and source citations, then archive the original report and receipt bytes before later writers run. Invalid or lost required coverage needs a fresh assessment under the selected failure policy. Give every result and partial finding to Review Sweep with its provenance.
  3. Settle findings and check accepted fixes through Review Sweep. After code or substantive instruction fixes, refresh the full snapshot against the original base and start a new round. Ordinary prose and wording-only fixes use targeted checks instead.

Finish when the required assessments cover the final snapshot, accepted fixes and checks are settled, and code/substantive instructions have a final round with no fixes. Missing required coverage blocks completion. Reopen a settled finding only with new evidence; report stalled disputes rather than repeating equivalent rounds.

In the Orchestration handoff, map child tasks to review assignments, criteria, models, and rounds. Include the reviewed base/snapshot, findings/dispositions, coverage/diversity gaps, skipped additional reviews and reasons, and provider references used or unavailable.

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.

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.