/loop Review the current change and continue until complete
claude-code
Use this when
You have an uncommitted change or open diff and want a persistent multi-pass reviewer that keeps re-reading until it stops finding problems, instead of one shallow pass.
Done when
✓ Complete here is the agent's own judgment, so treat the output as a ranked findings list, not a merge approval. Pair it with your CI gate and read the findings yourself — a review loop reports; it should not be the thing that merges.
Why it works
A single review pass catches the obvious; iterating re-examines the diff after each round, closer to how a human reviewer re-reads. /loop keeps the review going until the agent confirms the work is complete.
Two reviewers from different model families, each in a fresh context, must both pass an objective rubric before a PR is opened — the maker-checker split with real model diversity. Each failed round fixes only what was flagged and re-reviews with reviewers that have no memory of the last round, so nothing anchors on prior findings. Hard cap of three rounds, tests may never be edited to pass, and the loop ends by opening a PR rather than pushing. Adapted from ECC's /santa-loop (affaan-m/ECC, MIT), which auto-pushes on agreement and has no verifiable exit; this version adds the test-exit condition and the human merge gate.
/goal Ship the current diff only after two independent reviewers both PASS. Scope is `git diff --name-only HEAD` (or the path in $ARGUMENTS). First write a rubric with objective PASS/FAIL criteria: correctness, security (no secrets, injection, OWASP top 10), error handling, completeness, internal consistency, no regressions. Each round launch two reviewers in parallel with fresh context and no memory of earlier rounds: Reviewer A is a Claude subagent, Reviewer B is a different model via `codex exec --sandbox read-only` (fall back to a second Claude subagent and say so in the report). Both return a JSON verdict with per-criterion PASS/FAIL and critical issues. If either FAILs: fix only the flagged issues with minimal diffs, never modify the tests to make them pass, commit "fix: address review findings (round N)", run `npm test`, and re-review with fresh reviewers. Exit when both reviewers PASS and `npm test` exits 0 — then open a PR for me to merge; never push to main or merge. Stop after 3 rounds; if still failing, print the unresolved issues and escalate to me instead of shipping.
Run a full review pass inline, apply validated blocking findings at their owning layer, re-run fresh until the gate clears or blockers plateau—capped at 3 rounds with escalation.
/goal why-review fix-loop convergence: repeatedly run the full-mode /why-review pass INLINE over {target}. After each review, apply only VALIDATED findings that block the current round (all open severities in round 1 — Round-1 LOW closure; CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM from round 2) at their owning layer, then re-run a FRESH full review pass over the CHANGED target. If the current round's blocking findings >0 → apply fixes and run another round; if a fresh full review pass clears the current bar (round 1: zero open findings; round 2: zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, LOW deferred) → CONVERGED, clear the gate. Do NOT open another round for LOW-only findings from round 2. Cap at {N=3} review rounds; a failing test gate is outside the cap and the no-progress rule — keep fixing and re-running until the tests pass, never forcing green; if review blockers do not shrink across 2 consecutive rounds or increase, or the review budget (round 3) is spent with review blockers still open → STOP and escalate via AskUserQuestion. Never loop open-ended