inprealpha Review loop
The user wants finished work, improved through independent scrutiny without having to manage each review round.
Align first
Ask a few quick questions up front only where the request leaves meaningful choices: what does a good result look like, and which perspectives should the reviews cover? For software, consider both technical quality and product behavior or UX; let the user's priorities determine the emphasis. Offer a sensible default instead of an open-ended interview. If the answers are already clear, start working.
Infer likely failure modes from the work. When alignment would help, briefly offer your view of what to watch for and invite corrections or additions. Adapt this to the project and what the user has already said; skip it when priorities are clear. Use those anticipated failure modes to guide both the work and the reviewers' focus.
After that, proceed autonomously. If the user says no questions, infer reasonable defaults and begin. If they want to stay involved, bring them consequential choices and return to them when the loop hits a snag or starts repeating itself. Otherwise, reserve interruptions for blockers you cannot resolve within the agreed scope. Follow any effort limits the user sets.
Work, review, repeat
Do the work, then spawn a reviewer with a fresh context. Give it the user's intended outcome, the relevant artifacts, and the review perspective—not the full conversation or your argument for why the work is good. Use multiple reviewers in parallel when the complexity warrants distinct perspectives; one reviewer can cover several sides of a smaller task.
Evaluate the feedback, make worthwhile fixes, and send the updated work to newly spawned reviewers. Adjust their prompts as the work evolves while keeping the user's outcome fixed. Reviews should examine the result as a whole, not just confirm that previous comments were addressed.
Finish when a fresh review of the current result has no unresolved major findings and the work meets the agreed outcome. Optional polish need not keep the loop alive. If reviews stop producing progress, change the approach or report the blocker; stalling or reaching an effort limit is not convergence.