Loop Review

Loop Review

Audit an existing loop prompt or harness and tell the user exactly where it will break and how to fix it. The job is diagnosis + concrete fixes, not a vague "looks good." Most loop pathologies map to a specific missing piece — find it.

> Write the report in the user's language; reasoning in English.

Inputs

Get the artifact to review: the loop prompt / system prompt / harness (paste, file path, or repo). If the user describes a symptom instead, the symptom map below points straight at the likely gap. If they have a SPEC or success criteria, read those too — a loop that doesn't match its spec is itself a finding.

How to audit

Run the artifact against the shared checklist in ../loop-engineering/references/checklist.md (the same seven dimensions loop-engineering builds to). For each item, decide pass / gap, and for each gap note the exact missing thing and a one-line fix. Read ../loop-engineering/references/principles.md if you need the "why" behind a dimension.

Be a tough but fair reviewer:

• Critical gaps first. The items that cause runaway, drift, or fake success

(no hard cap, no verifiable criteria, no externalized state, no real verification, no anti-reward-hacking guardrail). Any one of these means "not ready."

• Then non-critical gaps, ranked by impact. Don't bury the big fix under nits.
• Then what it already does well — so the user knows what not to touch

(surgical changes only).

• Quote the prompt when pointing at a problem; concrete beats abstract.

Symptom → likely gap

Use this to go straight to the cause when the user reports a behavior:

| Symptom | Likely missing piece | Dimension | |---|---|---| | Runs forever / never stops | No hard cap; no verifiable "done" | B, A | | Quits too early / gives up | "Blocked" not defined, or criteria too vague to confirm done | B, A | | "Done" but it isn't | Verification not mandatory/real; criteria not verifiable | G, A | | Repeats the same failed action | No "stuck" detection; no hypothesis/progress log | B, D | | Forgets progress after restart | State not externalized to files | D | | Edits tests / weakens checks to pass | No anti-reward-hacking guardrail; goal not protected | G, D | | Tries to do everything at once | No "one increment per iteration" rule | C | | Slows down / loses the thread over time | No context discipline / compaction / notes | E | | Picks the wrong next thing | No Orient step / no prioritized task list | C, D |

Output

A LOOP-REVIEW.md (or inline report) with:

1. Verdict — ready / not ready, and the headline reason.
2. Score — critical gap count + total gap count (from the checklist).
3. Critical gaps — each: what's missing, why it bites, the one-line fix.
4. Other gaps — ranked by impact.
5. Strengths — what's already good; leave it alone.

Then offer to apply the fixes: rewrite the prompt closing the gaps (using the loop-engineering template), changing only what the findings require — don't gold-plate a prompt that's mostly fine.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: VioletScar-Hui
• Source: VioletScar-Hui/BuildGreat_Loop
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.