Skip to main content

reflection-review-loop

Use when a draft answer, code change, document, plan, or workflow decision needs a second-pass critique before final delivery, especially when correctness, completeness, safety, or verification quality matters.

来源信息

仓库
hideaway007/codex-self-improvement-skills
最近来源活动
2026年4月29日 06:10
检测到的 SKILL.md 语言
英语
星标
0
分支
0

安装方式

默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt;你也可以切换为直接命令,或下载本地副本。

检查来源文件

决定是否安装前,请先阅读 SKILL.md,以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。

文件资源管理器
2 个文件

正在显示 SKILL.md

SKILL.md
来源说明 · 只读预览
name
reflection-review-loop
description
Use when a draft answer, code change, document, plan, or workflow decision needs a second-pass critique before final delivery, especially when correctness, completeness, safety, or verification quality matters.
# Reflection Review Loop ## Overview Use a generator-critic loop inside the current task: produce a concrete draft, review it against explicit success criteria, fix only actionable issues, then verify the revised result. ## When to Use Use this skill: - Before final delivery of non-trivial code, docs, reports, plans, prompts, or workflows. - After implementing a fix but before claiming it is complete. - When the task has checkable requirements, known failure modes, or user-facing impact. - When an answer could be incomplete because context is large, ambiguous, or multi-step. Do not use it for one-line shell outputs, trivial translations, or read-only facts where normal verification is enough. ## Workflow 1. Define the success criteria in 3-7 bullets. - Include the user's explicit request. - Include project or local instructions that constrain the result. - Include verification evidence expected before completion. 2. Produce the first draft or implementation. - Keep the work scoped to the request. - Do not polish around unclear requirements before checking the core behavior. 3. Run a critic pass. - Check for requirement gaps. - Check for factual or code correctness issues. - Check for missing tests, lint, build, visual QA, or source verification. - Check for safety, data, secret, auth, irreversible, or security boundaries. - Check whether the final answer will tell the user what changed, what passed, and what remains unknown. 4. Convert critique into actions. - Fix concrete defects. - Drop speculative improvements. - If the critic finds a real blocker, stop and report it clearly. 5. Re-run the narrowest relevant verification. - Use `verification-loop` after meaningful file or workflow changes. - Use domain skills such as `pdf`, `webapp-testing`, or `documentation-lookup` when the artifact requires them. 6. Finalize only when the critic has no remaining actionable issue. ## Critic Prompt Use this checklist as the review lens: ```text Review this result against the user's request and local instructions. Find only actionable issues. Prioritize correctness, completeness, verification, safety boundaries, and user impact. Ignore style preferences unless they affect clarity or usability. Return: blocking issues, non-blocking issues, missing verification, and final answer risks. ``` ## Using Subagents If the user explicitly allowed subagents or parallel agents, a reviewer subagent can perform the critic pass. Otherwise, perform the critic pass locally. ## Common Mistakes - Treating reflection as extra prose instead of a defect-finding step. - Accepting vague critique such as "improve clarity" without a concrete change. - Running the loop forever. Two passes are usually enough unless verification exposes new failures. - Claiming completion before the revised result has been checked.
在 GitHub 查看