By name: review-loop description: "Run quality verification and review loop on session deliverables. Detects organisation from context and applies appropriate review standards. Manually invoked only."
Review Loop: Quality Verification and Critique Cycle
Run a structured quality loop on deliverables from the current session. This skill is manually invoked — it never runs automatically.
When to Use
Invoke with /review-loop or when the user asks to "quality check", "review loop", or "run the review cycle" on deliverables.
The Loop (max 3 rounds)
Step 1: Identify Deliverables
Find files created or modified in this session with deliverable extensions: .md, .docx, .txt, .pdf, .pptx, .xlsx.
If no deliverables found, ask the user which files to review.
Step 2: Verify (quality-score)
Run quality-score [filepath] on each deliverable using the Bash tool.
- If
quality-scoreis not installed (~/bin/quality-scorenot found), skip to Step 3 - If score >= 80, proceed to Step 3
- If score < 80, fix the reported issues (unresolved brackets, TODOs, naming issues) and re-run quality-score
- If exit code 2 (auto-fail), stop the loop and report to the user immediately
Step 3: Review (critic or devils-advocate)
Detect the context from the deliverable — file content, project folder name, conversation history, or explicit user instruction.
Branded client work:
Launch the deliverable-critic agent via the Task tool (subagent_type=general-purpose). Pass the file path and specify the organisation context. The agent file is at ~/.claude/agents/deliverable-critic.md — include its full content in the agent prompt.
Internal or general work:
Run the /devils-advocate skill on the deliverable.
Unclear: Ask the user which standards to apply.
Step 4: Fix
For critic agent findings:
Launch the deliverable-fixer agent via the Task tool (subagent_type=general-purpose). Pass the file path and the critic's findings. The agent file is at ~/.claude/agents/deliverable-fixer.md — include its full content in the agent prompt.
For devils-advocate findings: Fix in the main session. Address the strongest concern first, then work through remaining challenges.
Step 5: Re-score
Run quality-score [filepath] again.
- Score >= 80 → deliverable is done
- Score < 80 and rounds < 3 → return to Step 4
- Rounds = 3 → stop and present remaining issues to the user for manual decision
Step 6: Report
Show the user:
- Final quality-score output for each deliverable
- Summary of what was fixed
- Any remaining issues that need manual attention
Rules
- Maximum 3 total rounds (the initial implement does not count; rounds start at Step 4)
- Auto-fail (exit code 2) stops immediately — report to user, do not attempt fixes
- Always show the final quality-score output — the user should see the score
- If the user says "skip review", run only quality-score without the critic/devils-advocate step
- Do not modify files the user did not create in this session unless explicitly asked
- The critic agent is read-only — it produces findings but cannot edit. The fixer agent applies changes