DobroslavRadosavljevic/skills

Loop

Overview

Run the requested task as an iterative implementation pipeline. Implement the change, review the result, fix every actionable issue, and repeat until the review is clean or a real blocker prevents further progress.

Operating Rules

• Keep ownership with the orchestrator agent. Use reviewers for independent scrutiny, but the main agent decides what to fix, performs the fixes, and verifies the final state.
• Do not stop after finding review issues. Fix them, then run another review pass.
• Treat review findings as actionable unless they are demonstrably incorrect, duplicate, impossible with available context, or outside the user's requested scope.
• Do not claim the loop is complete while known correctness, security, data-loss, regression, build, test, or user-visible defects remain.
• Preserve unrelated user changes. If a review finding points at unrelated dirty work, call it out instead of rewriting it.
• When the harness supports todo lists, plans, or task checklists, create a clear, detailed todo list before implementation and keep item statuses current through every review and fix cycle.
• Keep the user updated during long loops, especially before substantial edits and after each review cycle.

Workflow

1. Understand the task and inspect the relevant repo context.
2. Create a useful todo list if the harness supports one, with enough detail to track implementation, verification, review, and follow-up fixes.
3. Implement the requested change using the repo's existing patterns.
4. Run the most relevant verification available for the change.
5. Run a review pass against the implementation.
6. If the review finds actionable issues, fix them.
7. Re-run affected verification.
8. Re-run review.
9. Continue steps 6-8 until the review has no actionable findings.
10. Finish with the final state, verification performed, and any residual blockers or explicitly deferred non-issues.

Review Mode

Choose the smallest review method that gives credible coverage:

• Use a self-review pass for narrow, low-risk, single-area changes.
• Use one or more subagents when available and useful for broad changes, security-sensitive work, cross-cutting behavior, unfamiliar code, or when the user asks for subagents.
• Split subagent reviews by concern when that improves signal, such as correctness, tests, UX, performance, security, or docs.
• Give reviewers the task, changed files or diff, and verification output. Do not give them the desired answer or ask them to rubber-stamp the work.

Review Standard

Every review pass should check:

• The user's request is fully satisfied.
• The change fits existing architecture, naming, style, and ownership boundaries.
• Error handling, edge cases, and rollback or failure behavior are reasonable.
• Tests or verification cover the risky behavior touched by the change.
• No unrelated edits, secrets, generated noise, or local-only assumptions were introduced.
• Documentation or user-facing text was updated when the behavior changed.

Fixing Review Findings

For each actionable finding:

• Reproduce or inspect the issue enough to understand it.
• Patch the root cause, not only the symptom.
• Add or update tests when the bug is behavioral and the repo has a suitable test surface.
• Re-run the narrowest useful verification first, then broader gates when risk or repo norms call for them.
• Keep a short internal ledger of findings and status so repeated review cycles do not lose track.

If a finding is not fixed, it must have a concrete reason: false positive, duplicate, out of scope, blocked by missing prerequisite, or requires user product judgment. Report that clearly in the final response.

Stopping Criteria

Stop only when one of these is true:

• A review pass returns no actionable issues and relevant verification has passed or been honestly reported as unavailable.
• The same blocker prevents progress after serious attempts to resolve it, such as missing credentials, unavailable services, failing external dependencies, or an ambiguous product decision that cannot be inferred safely.
• The user explicitly asks to pause, stop, or change direction.

Do not stop merely because one review-fix cycle completed. The loop ends when the work is clean, not when the first review has been addressed.

Final Response

Summarize:

• What changed.
• How many review cycles ran and what the last review concluded.
• Verification commands and results.
• Any unfixed finding, blocker, or intentional deferral.