name: work-and-review-loop description: Work on tasks with iterative senior review until approved
Work and Review Loop
Execute tasks with an iterative review cycle: clarify, work, get reviewed by a domain senior, fix feedback, repeat until approved.
Process
digraph work_review_loop {
rankdir=TB;
"0. Clarify any ambiguity with the instructor" [shape=box];
"Everything clear?" [shape=diamond];
"1. Work on the task" [shape=box];
"2. Get reviewed by a senior in that field" [shape=box];
"Feedback exists?" [shape=diamond];
"Done" [shape=ellipse];
"0. Clarify any ambiguity with the instructor" -> "Everything clear?";
"Everything clear?" -> "0. Clarify any ambiguity with the instructor" [label="no"];
"Everything clear?" -> "1. Work on the task" [label="yes"];
"1. Work on the task" -> "2. Get reviewed by a senior in that field";
"2. Get reviewed by a senior in that field" -> "Feedback exists?";
"Feedback exists?" -> "0. Clarify any ambiguity with the instructor" [label="yes - clarify feedback first"];
"Feedback exists?" -> "Done" [label="no"];
}
Steps
- Clarify: If anything is unclear, ask the instructor questions until everything is crystal clear
- Work: Complete the assigned task(s)
- Review: Dispatch a senior-level reviewer subagent in that domain to review your work
- Iterate or Finish:
- If feedback exists: Return to step 0 to clarify the feedback, then fix
- If no feedback: Task complete
Important Rules
- Never proceed with ambiguity: If requirements, scope, approach, or feedback are unclear, stop and ask the instructor
- Keep asking until clear: Don't assume or guess. Ask follow-up questions until you fully understand
- Review is mandatory: Always get senior review before marking complete
- Clarify feedback too: When you receive review feedback, make sure you understand it before fixing
Reviewer Subagent
When dispatching the reviewer, use the Task tool with a prompt like:
You are a senior {domain} engineer. Review the following work:
{work description and context}
Files changed: {list of files}
Provide feedback on:
- Correctness
- Best practices
- Code quality
- Edge cases
If everything looks good, respond with "APPROVED". Otherwise, list specific issues to fix.
Example
You: I need to implement the authentication feature
[Step 0: Clarify]
You: "Should this support OAuth, or just email/password?"
Instructor: "Email/password only for now"
You: "Should we include 'forgot password' flow?"
Instructor: "Yes, with email verification"
[Step 1: Work - now clear, proceed]
[Implement login flow with forgot password]
[Step 2: Review]
[Dispatch senior backend reviewer]
Reviewer: Issues found:
- Missing rate limiting
- Password reset token expiration unclear
[Step 0: Clarify feedback]
You: "For rate limiting, how many attempts before lockout?"
Instructor: "5 attempts, then 15 minute lockout"
You: "Password reset token - 15 minutes expiration?"
Instructor: "Yes, 15 minutes"
[Step 1: Work - fix with clarity]
[Apply fixes with clear requirements]
[Step 2: Review again]
[Dispatch senior backend reviewer again]
Reviewer: APPROVED
Done!