Atlas Iterative

Atlas Iterative Workflow

When to Use This Skill

Perfect for:

• Styling improvements that need validation
• Simple UI tweaks requiring quality checks
• Straightforward refactors
• Changes where you know what to do but want peer eyes
• Modifications that don't need research/planning

Time estimate: 15-30 minutes (including review cycles)

Success criteria:

• Change validated in < 30 minutes
• Peer review approved
• Tests pass
• No major refactoring needed

The 3 Phases

Phase 1: Make Change           → Implement change
Phase 2: Peer Review (Cycle)   → Review → Fix → Repeat until pass
Phase 3: Deploy                → Test + deploy

Phase 1: Make Change

Goal: Implement the change you know needs to happen.

Steps:

1. Understand what needs changing

   • The requirement is clear (no research needed)
   • You know which file(s) to change
   • Approach is straightforward

2. Make the change

   • Implement the modification
   • Follow project conventions
   • Add comments if needed

3. Self-verify

   • Visual check (if UI)
   • Logic check (if code)
   • Convention check (StackMap-specific rules)

Implementation Checklist:

• Change implemented in 1-2 files
• StackMap conventions followed:
  • Field naming (text/icon, not name/emoji)
  • Store methods (not direct setState)
  • Typography component (not direct fontWeight)
  • No gray text (#000 only)
• Change verified locally
• No console.logs left behind

Examples:

Example 1: Button spacing

// Before
<View style={{ padding: 8 }}>
  <Button />
</View>

// After (better spacing)
<View style={{ padding: 16 }}>
  <Button />
</View>

Example 2: Extract helper function

// Before (validation inline)
const isValid = email.includes('@') && email.length > 5

// After (extracted)
const validateEmail = (email) => {
  return email.includes('@') && email.length > 5
}
const isValid = validateEmail(email)

Phase 2: Peer Review (Iterative Cycle)

Goal: Get peer feedback, address issues, repeat until approved.

The Review Cycle:

1. Submit for review
2. Receive feedback
3. Address feedback
4. Re-submit
5. Repeat until PASS

Steps:

1. Self-review first

   # Run quick checks
   npm run typecheck
   npm run lint
   

2. Submit for peer review

   • Explain what changed and why
   • Highlight areas you're uncertain about
   • Request specific feedback if needed

3. Receive feedback

   • Read all feedback carefully
   • Ask clarifying questions if unclear
   • Prioritize blocking issues

4. Address feedback

   • Fix all blocking issues
   • Consider suggestions
   • Update code based on feedback

5. Re-submit

   • Explain what you changed
   • Confirm all issues addressed
   • Run validation again

Review Checklist:

Before submitting:

• Type checking passes
• Linting passes (or only warnings)
• Self-reviewed for obvious issues
• StackMap conventions verified

During review:

• Understand all feedback
• Track which issues addressed
• Test after each fix
• Document non-obvious decisions

Review pass criteria:

• No blocking issues
• Code quality acceptable
• Edge cases considered
• StackMap conventions followed

Common Review Feedback:

Feedback 1: Missing edge case

// Review: "What if activities array is empty?"

// Before
const firstActivity = activities[0]

// After
const firstActivity = activities.length > 0 ? activities[0] : null
if (!firstActivity) return null

Feedback 2: Convention violation

// Review: "Should use store-specific method"

// Before
useAppStore.setState({ users: newUsers })

// After
useUserStore.getState().setUsers(newUsers)

Feedback 3: Accessibility

// Review: "Gray text violates accessibility rules"

// Before
<Text style={{ color: '#666666' }}>Secondary text</Text>

// After
<Text style={{ color: '#000000' }}>Secondary text</Text>

Using Peer-Reviewer Agent:

If the atlas-agent-peer-reviewer skill is available:

"Review my changes: [brief description]

Files changed:
- /path/to/file1.js
- /path/to/file2.js

What I changed:
[Explanation]

Please check for:
- Edge cases
- StackMap conventions
- Code quality
"

The peer-reviewer agent will provide structured feedback with a verdict:

• 🔴 REJECTED: Must fix issues and resubmit
• ⚠️ CONDITIONAL PASS: Minor issues, can address after merge
• ✅ PASS: Approved, proceed to deploy

Phase 3: Deploy

Goal: Deploy the approved changes.

Steps:

1. Final validation

   npm run typecheck
   npm test
   

2. Update PENDING_CHANGES.md

   ## Title: Improve button spacing for better UX
   ### Changes Made:
   - Updated button padding from 8px to 16px
   - Applied consistently across login and signup screens
   - Peer reviewed and approved
   

3. Deploy to QUAL

   ./scripts/deploy.sh qual --all
   

4. Verify deployment

   • Check deployment output
   • Test in QUAL environment
   • Confirm change is live

Deployment Checklist:

• PENDING_CHANGES.md updated
• All tests pass
• Type checking passes
• Peer review approved
• Deployed using script
• Change verified in QUAL

Escalation Criteria

Escalate to Standard workflow if:

• Affects more than 2 files
• Tests fail (need new tests)
• Complex edge cases emerge
• Needs architectural decisions
• Uncertain about approach

Escalate to Full workflow if:

• Security implications discovered
• Cross-platform coordination needed
• Formal requirements become necessary

How to Escalate:

"Escalating to Standard workflow. Found 4 files need changes and complex edge cases require planning."

Then restart from Phase 1 of Standard workflow.

Common Iterative Workflow Tasks

1. Style/Layout Improvements

Use case: Adjust spacing, alignment, sizing for better UX

Pattern:

• Phase 1: Adjust styles
• Phase 2: Get visual feedback from reviewer
• Phase 3: Deploy

Time: 15-20 minutes

2. Component Refactoring

Use case: Extract logic, improve code organization

Pattern:

• Phase 1: Refactor code
• Phase 2: Reviewer checks for edge cases, naming
• Phase 3: Deploy

Time: 20-25 minutes

3. UI Tweaks

Use case: Update animations, transitions, visual effects

Pattern:

• Phase 1: Implement tweak
• Phase 2: Reviewer checks cross-platform compatibility
• Phase 3: Deploy

Time: 15-25 minutes

Anti-Patterns (Don't Do This)

❌ Anti-Pattern 1: Skipping Review

"Change looks good to me, deploying immediately"

Problem: Purpose of Iterative is validation. Without review, use Quick workflow.

Solution: Complete the review cycle or use Quick workflow if validation not needed.

❌ Anti-Pattern 2: Ignoring Feedback

Reviewer: "Missing edge case"
You: "Looks fine to me, merging anyway"

Problem: Defeats purpose of peer review.

Solution: Address all blocking feedback or escalate to discuss with team.

❌ Anti-Pattern 3: Scope Creep

Started: "Adjust button padding"
Now doing: "Adjust padding + refactor button component + add new props"

Problem: No longer iterative, too complex.

Solution: Escalate to Standard workflow or split into multiple tasks.

Iterative Workflow Checklist

Phase 1: Make Change

• Requirement is clear (no research needed)
• Know which file(s) to change
• Change implemented in 1-2 files
• Self-verified (visual/logic check)
• StackMap conventions followed

Phase 2: Peer Review (Cycle)

• Self-review first (typecheck, lint)
• Submitted for peer review
• Received feedback
• Addressed all blocking issues
• Re-submitted if needed
• Received PASS verdict

Phase 3: Deploy

• Final validation passed
• PENDING_CHANGES.md updated
• Deployed using script
• Verified in environment

Red Flags (Escalate):

• ⚠️ Affects 3+ files
• ⚠️ Tests failing
• ⚠️ Review reveals architectural issues
• ⚠️ Approach uncertain
• ⚠️ Complex edge cases

Example: Complete Iterative Workflow

Task: "Improve card layout spacing for better visual hierarchy"

Phase 1: Make Change (10 minutes)

// File: src/components/ActivityCard.js

// Before
const styles = StyleSheet.create({
  card: {
    padding: 12,
    margin: 8
  },
  title: {
    fontSize: 16,
    marginBottom: 4
  }
})

// After (improved spacing)
const styles = StyleSheet.create({
  card: {
    padding: 16,      // More breathing room
    margin: 12        // Better separation between cards
  },
  title: {
    fontSize: 18,     // Larger, more prominent
    marginBottom: 8   // Better separation from subtitle
  }
})

Self-verify: Looks better visually ✅

Phase 2: Peer Review - Cycle 1 (5 minutes)

Submit: "Updated card spacing for better hierarchy. Please review."

Feedback received:

• ⚠️ "Check Android - percentage widths might be affected"
• ⚠️ "Verify on small screens (iPhone SE)"

Address feedback:

// Tested on Android simulator - widths still work ✅
// Tested on iPhone SE - spacing looks good ✅

Re-submit: "Tested on Android and small screens, all good."

Phase 2: Peer Review - Cycle 2 (3 minutes)

Feedback received:

• ✅ "PASS - Looks good, spacing is consistent"

Phase 3: Deploy (2 minutes)

Update PENDING_CHANGES.md:

## Title: Improve activity card spacing for better visual hierarchy
### Changes Made:
- Increased card padding from 12px to 16px
- Increased card margin from 8px to 12px
- Increased title font size from 16px to 18px
- Increased title bottom margin from 4px to 8px
- Tested on Android and iOS small screens
- Peer reviewed and approved

Deploy:

./scripts/deploy.sh qual --all
# ✅ Deployed successfully

Total time: 20 minutes ✅

Success Indicators

You've succeeded when:

• ✅ Completed in < 30 minutes
• ✅ Peer review approved
• ✅ Tests pass
• ✅ Change improves code/UX
• ✅ No scope creep

You should have escalated if:

• ⚠️ Took > 30 minutes
• ⚠️ Multiple review cycles with blocking issues
• ⚠️ Affects 3+ files
• ⚠️ Architectural concerns raised

Quick Reference

Iterative Workflow Commands:

# Validation
npm run typecheck
npm run lint

# Deploy
./scripts/deploy.sh qual --all

Time Allocation:

• Phase 1: 5-15 minutes (make change)
• Phase 2: 5-10 minutes (review cycles)
• Phase 3: 2-5 minutes (deploy)
• Total: 15-30 minutes

Decision:

• Know what to change, want validation → Iterative ✅
• Trivial, no validation needed → Quick
• Need research/planning → Standard
• Complex, formal process → Full

Summary

The Iterative workflow adds peer validation to simple changes. Use it when:

• You know what needs to change (no research)
• Approach is straightforward (no planning)
• But you want quality validation before deploying

Key advantage: Catches edge cases and convention violations early through structured review.

Remember: If review reveals complexity, escalate to Standard workflow rather than forcing it through Iterative.