Summary
Analysis of a 7-round RLCR session identified three patterns that could improve the loop methodology.
Suggested Improvements
1. Pre-exit self-audit checklist
Observed pattern: The implementer claimed completion in 5 of 7 rounds, but the reviewer found genuine outstanding issues each time — from broken scripts to missing file patterns.
Suggestion: Add a pre-exit self-audit step. Before writing a completion claim, the implementer must run a verification checklist against all acceptance criteria with concrete evidence, including negative-test scenarios (not just happy-path checks).
2. Negative-test scenarios in round contracts
Observed pattern: The implementer tested only with correct inputs. The reviewer consistently caught failures with: non-zero exit codes, compile-only inputs, and edge-case patterns.
Suggestion: The round contract template should include a section for planned negative-test scenarios: What happens when input fails? What happens when input is missing? What happens with the simplest valid input?
3. Reviewer requirement echo-back
Observed pattern: When the reviewer gave multi-part fix instructions, the implementer sometimes addressed only a subset, requiring a follow-up round for the remainder.
Suggestion: Require the implementer's round summary to echo back each reviewer requirement with an explicit resolution status (fixed/deferred/rejected with reason). This ensures no items are silently dropped.
Positive Finding
The two-phase review structure (implementation review + code review) worked well — the final code review phase caught a meta-issue that implementation-phase reviews had missed. Reviewer feedback was consistently actionable (location + reproduction command + fix instructions). Issue count converged monotonically from 5 to 0.
Summary
Analysis of a 7-round RLCR session identified three patterns that could improve the loop methodology.
Suggested Improvements
1. Pre-exit self-audit checklist
Observed pattern: The implementer claimed completion in 5 of 7 rounds, but the reviewer found genuine outstanding issues each time — from broken scripts to missing file patterns.
Suggestion: Add a pre-exit self-audit step. Before writing a completion claim, the implementer must run a verification checklist against all acceptance criteria with concrete evidence, including negative-test scenarios (not just happy-path checks).
2. Negative-test scenarios in round contracts
Observed pattern: The implementer tested only with correct inputs. The reviewer consistently caught failures with: non-zero exit codes, compile-only inputs, and edge-case patterns.
Suggestion: The round contract template should include a section for planned negative-test scenarios: What happens when input fails? What happens when input is missing? What happens with the simplest valid input?
3. Reviewer requirement echo-back
Observed pattern: When the reviewer gave multi-part fix instructions, the implementer sometimes addressed only a subset, requiring a follow-up round for the remainder.
Suggestion: Require the implementer's round summary to echo back each reviewer requirement with an explicit resolution status (fixed/deferred/rejected with reason). This ensures no items are silently dropped.
Positive Finding
The two-phase review structure (implementation review + code review) worked well — the final code review phase caught a meta-issue that implementation-phase reviews had missed. Reviewer feedback was consistently actionable (location + reproduction command + fix instructions). Issue count converged monotonically from 5 to 0.