# Review Fix Loop > Review a branch, PR, or local diff; fix accepted findings and verify before handoff or push. - Skill: `sreejithraman/review-fix-loop` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 6 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add sreejithraman/review-fix-loop` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sreejithraman/review-fix-loop/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: sreejithraman (https://skillmd.com/u/sreejithraman) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sreejithraman/review-fix-loop --- # Review Fix Loop The parent owns scope, dispatch, triage, fixes, and verification. Leave commits, pushes, PR replies, and merges to the caller. ## Scope and review path Resolve the supplied base once; use the merge-base for branch comparisons. Otherwise use the established parent branch or repo setting; ask if ambiguous. Stop on an invalid base or empty scope. Default scope: `git diff --` plus contents from `git ls-files --others --exclude-standard`. This includes committed, staged, unstaged, and untracked work. Honor a narrower scope when requested. Gather requirements from the user, issues, or spec; repo standards; and checks. Record the base, head, diff, and untracked contents for each round. Every reviewer reads that complete scope in every round, including the integrated work of all authors. Keep the original base when fixes change the diff. Use focused parent review for ordinary docs and wording-only instruction edits. When docs change agent behavior, use one independent reviewer as described below. Use the code loop for code or mixed changes, including executable skill scripts. Judge the changed content, not its extension. Honor an explicit request for additional reviewers or rounds. ## Focused review: ordinary docs The parent reviews the whole scope once against the requirements and repo rules. Check facts, conflicting instructions, missing requirements, and broken references. Treat style preferences as optional; enforce explicit writing requirements. Triage findings and apply accepted fixes, then check the revised text and relevant links, examples, and skill structure. Resolve remaining substantive issues and recheck the affected sections. Finish when accepted fixes are complete and relevant checks pass, or report concrete blockers and unfinished work. This path ends with targeted verification; edits do not start another full review or dispatch the code reviewers below. Report the result using the shared handoff. ## Docs that change agent behavior Use one fresh, independent `reviewer` for changes to skill procedures, global instructions, or agent configuration. Follow [agent routing](../goal-swarm/references/agent-routing.md) for its settings. Supply the whole diff and new files, requirements, related instructions, and realistic sample requests. Ask the reviewer to trace what those requests would cause, check conflicts and missing requirements, and report findings with evidence, coverage, and gaps. Keep it read-only and independent of earlier conclusions. The parent triages findings, fixes accepted issues, and checks relevant links, examples, syntax, and skill structure. After substantive fixes, use a fresh reviewer on the whole updated change against the original base. Wording-only fixes need targeted checks. Finish after a complete clean review and passing checks; report missing coverage or an unavailable reviewer as a blocker. ## Code review loop 1. **Review.** Choose one reviewer for a small, clear change to one behavior. Use two for substantial changes, multiple behaviors, shared contracts, risky logic, or work from several agents. Keep at most two unless the user explicitly requests more. Reassess the choice when fixes change the scope. Use the configured `reviewer` role following [agent routing](../goal-swarm/references/agent-routing.md). Use `hard_worker` with the same read-only contract when review needs difficult reasoning. Launch fresh agents each round, in parallel when using two, within available slots. Do not resume a prior reviewer for a new round. Cover these checks in every round: - **Correctness:** bugs, regressions, edge cases, security, data loss, and test gaps; use [Spec](references/spec.md) to trace requirements from the user request or supplied spec. - **Code quality:** [Ponytail](references/ponytail.md) for cuts and reuse, [Thermo](references/thermo.md) for structure and boundaries, and [Standards](references/standards.md) for repo rules. One reviewer covers both sets. With two, assign one set to each for emphasis; both still read every changed hunk and new file, trace nearby effects, and may report issues outside their emphasis. Keep Spec and Standards findings labeled separately even when one reviewer supplies both. Name the change's main risks in the briefs, such as access control, concurrent updates, or data migration. These guide the existing reviewers' checks; they do not add another reviewer automatically. Give each reviewer the same complete scope, requirements, standards, relevant checks, and absolute paths to its briefs. Require findings with locations, evidence, impact, and proposed remedies, plus coverage and gaps. Leave edits, further delegation, and acceptance to the parent. A complete review may find no issues. Require a concrete benefit for structural changes; preferences alone do not require a fix or another round. Keep reviewers independent of earlier conclusions or the author's defense. Pause edits until all return. If the code changes during review, refresh the whole scope and restart the round. Missing coverage or an unavailable reviewer is a blocker, not a clean review. Include extra or external reviews only when the user explicitly requests them, and include their findings in the sweep. 2. **Sweep.** Run `/review-sweep` in the parent. Keep each finding’s source, including Standards versus Spec. Finish when every finding has a disposition and every accepted fix is complete or blocked. Preserve intended behavior and contracts within the user’s authorized scope. 3. **Verify.** Run planned and fix-specific checks. Use judgment to decide whether `/manual-verify` would add useful confidence, based on the changed behavior, risk, and existing test coverage. Invoke it when needed, even if review found no fixes. Fix failures and rerun affected checks; reassess manual verification after fixes. Keep evidence only while it still applies to the current code. Report any verification you consider necessary but cannot run as a concrete blocker. 4. **Finish or repeat.** A complete clean round with passing checks can finish, including the first round. After any accepted fix or verification fix, refresh the full diff and untracked contents and return to step 1 against the original base. Small fixes count too; every round reviews the whole current change, not just fixes or earlier findings. Reopen rejected or deferred findings only with new evidence. Finish only when the last round makes no fixes, needs no further accepted fixes, has complete coverage, and passes relevant checks, including any manual verification judged necessary. Continue after fixes until that condition holds. If review stops making progress, diagnose the repeated issue, use a stronger reviewer when needed, or report the concrete blocker. An incomplete round never counts as clean. ## Handoff Report scope, review path, round count, reviewer roles and requested settings, coverage, fixes, deferrals, blockers, checks, any manual verification evidence, and remaining risks. Distinguish confirmed settings from unverified requests.