review-loop

name	review-loop
description	Run quality verification and review loop on session deliverables. Detects organisation from context and applies appropriate review standards. Manually invoked only.

Review Loop: Quality Verification and Critique Cycle

Run a structured quality loop on deliverables from the current session. This skill is manually invoked — it never runs automatically.

When to Use

Invoke with /review-loop or when the user asks to "quality check", "review loop", or "run the review cycle" on deliverables.

The Loop (max 3 rounds)

Step 1: Identify Deliverables

Find files created or modified in this session with deliverable extensions: .md, .docx, .txt, .pdf, .pptx, .xlsx.

If no deliverables found, ask the user which files to review.

Step 2: Verify (quality-score)

Run quality-score [filepath] on each deliverable using the Bash tool.

• If quality-score is not installed (~/bin/quality-score not found), skip to Step 3
• If score >= 80, proceed to Step 3
• If score < 80, fix the reported issues (unresolved brackets, TODOs, naming issues) and re-run quality-score
• If exit code 2 (auto-fail), stop the loop and report to the user immediately

Step 3: Review (critic or devils-advocate)

Detect the context from the deliverable — file content, project folder name, conversation history, or explicit user instruction.

Branded client work: Launch the deliverable-critic agent via the Task tool (subagent_type=general-purpose). Pass the file path and specify the organisation context. The agent file is at ~/.claude/agents/deliverable-critic.md — include its full content in the agent prompt.

Internal or general work: Run the /devils-advocate skill on the deliverable.

Unclear: Ask the user which standards to apply.

Step 4: Fix

For critic agent findings: Launch the deliverable-fixer agent via the Task tool (subagent_type=general-purpose). Pass the file path and the critic's findings. The agent file is at ~/.claude/agents/deliverable-fixer.md — include its full content in the agent prompt.

For devils-advocate findings: Fix in the main session. Address the strongest concern first, then work through remaining challenges.

Step 5: Re-score

Run quality-score [filepath] again.

• Score >= 80 → deliverable is done
• Score < 80 and rounds < 3 → return to Step 4
• Rounds = 3 → stop and present remaining issues to the user for manual decision

Step 6: Report

Show the user:

• Final quality-score output for each deliverable
• Summary of what was fixed
• Any remaining issues that need manual attention

Rules

• Maximum 3 total rounds (the initial implement does not count; rounds start at Step 4)
• Auto-fail (exit code 2) stops immediately — report to user, do not attempt fixes
• Always show the final quality-score output — the user should see the score
• If the user says "skip review", run only quality-score without the critic/devils-advocate step
• Do not modify files the user did not create in this session unless explicitly asked
• The critic agent is read-only — it produces findings but cannot edit. The fixer agent applies changes