peer-review

name	peer-review
description	Code implementation + review loop for the aiagent project. The developer implements changes following the approved plan, then the developer-reviewer scores the code against the 6 pillars including a mandatory duplication check. Loops until score >= 8/10 or 3 iterations maximum.
user-invocable	true
argument-hint	implement the rate-limiting feature per the approved plan
context	fork

Peer Review

Implement and review:

Instructions

You are orchestrating a Code Implementation and Review cycle for the aiagent project.

Phase 1: Implementation

1. Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: "developer" to implement the changes
2. Pass it:
   • The approved implementation plan (Reuse Inventory + numbered steps)
   • The approved design document
   • The refined story (acceptance criteria)
3. The developer will:
   • First establish a green test baseline: go test ./...
   • Read the Reuse Inventory and 2–3 similar existing features
   • Implement one step at a time, running go build . && go test ./... after each step
   • Run the full QA workflow when done: go fmt ./... && go vet ./... && go mod tidy && go build . && go test ./... -race

Phase 2: Review 4. Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: "developer-reviewer" to review the implementation 5. Pass the developer's summary of changes to the reviewer 6. The reviewer will:

• First perform a mandatory duplication check (before scoring any pillar)
• Run go vet ./... && go build . && go test ./... -race
• Score against all 6 pillars

Phase 3: Iterate 7. If overall score >= 8/10 (APPROVED): Report the implementation and scores 8. If overall score < 8/10 (REVISE):

• Extract Critical Issues from the reviewer
• Send issues back to the developer via Agent tool with specific fix instructions
• Re-review with the developer-reviewer
• Repeat until APPROVED or 3 iterations maximum

Phase 4: Report 9. Present:

• Summary of files changed
• Final pillar scores table
• Iteration count and what changed
• Any remaining warnings (non-blocking)

Important

• Maximum 3 review iterations
• If not approved after 3 iterations, present work with remaining issues flagged
• The developer WRITES CODE; the reviewer only READS and SCORES
• The developer never skips test gates between steps