Subagent Review Cycles

Subagent Review Cycles

When to invoke

• About to dispatch a sub-agent to draft a technical document / design section.
• The first version of a document is ready and a Code Reviewer should audit technical correctness.
• User asks "how many review rounds", "should Code Reviewer run CLI", "what counts as rejection".

The triad

The Leader never writes the implementation / drafts a section directly — that's the Developer's job. The Leader never does the review either — that's the Code Reviewer's job.

Round structure

round N:
  Leader → Developer: dispatch (scope + skills + inputs + return format + criteria)
  Developer → Leader: draft
  Leader → Code Reviewer: dispatch (review criteria + must use WebSearch, no CLI)
  Code Reviewer → Leader: BLOCKER / MAJOR / MINOR list
  Leader: ACCEPT / REJECT each item with explicit reason
  if accepted_count == total: done
  if N == limit: pause, report to user
  else: round N+1 with feedback

limit(N) is typically 3–5. If the limit is reached without convergence: pause, report to the user, wait for direction.

The "round-1 cosmetic" pragmatic rule

If a round-1 result has only spelling / formatting / paragraph order / string typo cosmetic-grade fixes left:

• Leader applies inline edits directly instead of dispatching round 2 to the Developer
• Still record these fixes in the meeting log
• Reasoning: "limit is an upper bound, not a requirement"; burning a whole round just for typos is uneconomical

Criteria: the fix can be completed by the Leader in ≤ 5 minutes and involves no new decisions.

Dispatch contract for Code Reviewer

Every Code Reviewer dispatch prompt must include:

1. Target file / section scope (explicit file + section)
2. Forbidden tools: CLI is forbidden for probing API/runtime behavior (build, run, simctl, trial-and-error); read-only search (grep, rg, git log, git show) is allowed
3. Allowed tools: WebSearch / WebFetch (for verifying Apple APIs, library behaviour)
4. Review criteria (4 dimensions + domain-specific checklist):
   • Technical correctness (API name, behaviour, version)
   • Logical consistency (internal contradictions, cross-section conflicts)
   • Completeness (missing edge case, error handling, prerequisite)
   • Efficiency (algorithm, CI / build / runtime cost)
5. Return format: BLOCKER / MAJOR / MINOR three-level classification; each item with location (file + section) + suggestion. An absence claim ("the spec doesn't define this", "nothing covers this case") must include the grep/search command run and its zero-hit output — an absence claim with no evidence attached doesn't count as a finding.

Accept / Reject reply style

For each review finding the Leader gives:

• ACCEPT + reason: accepted; specify who fixes it this round
• REJECT + reason: rejected with a technical reason (not just "no")
• DEFER: acknowledged but deferred (goes to backlog / open items)

REJECT must cite specific evidence (API doc, prior decision, design constraint); pure preference is not acceptable.

Anti-patterns

• Using CLI to probe Apple API behaviour: forbidden. Use official docs / WebSearch instead.
• Repeatedly rejecting the same point in the same section: more than 2 identical rejections counts as a communication failure; pause and clarify with the user.
• ACCEPT without a reason: every ACCEPT should still have a one-line note of why it adds value.
• Leader drafting sections themselves: violates the role separation; only allowed for cosmetic-grade fixes.

Verification checklist

• Every absence claim ("not defined", "no coverage") in a review finding cites the grep/search command and its zero-hit output — otherwise it doesn't count as a finding.
• Each round has an explicit dispatch prompt (all 5 elements present).
• Each review finding has an explicit accept / reject label + reason.
• When limit(N) is reached without convergence, pause; don't keep iterating indefinitely.
• Cosmetic fixes are inline-edited by the Leader; don't burn a round on them.
• The round-summary is recorded in the meeting log (not a verbatim copy of review content).

Phase TODO sweep checklist

A separate close-the-loop activity that fires once per phase (not once per review round), so it's not part of the round structure above. Before the Leader signs off on a phase-completion PR, run a sweep against the phase's diff scope to catch deferred-and-forgotten debt.

For the full sweep procedure, command, disposition rule, and anti-pattern, read references/phase-todo-sweep.md.

Related skills

• leader-developer-handoff-contract: details the 5 elements of each sub-agent dispatch.
• spec-phase-orchestration: review cycles are usually embedded in the spec phase.
• methodology-pattern-extractor: "round-1 cosmetic inline edit" is a codifiable pattern.