@heyai-rules/pilo-masterkit 1.2.2 → 3.1.0

package/.agent/workflows/santa-loop.md

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+---
+description: Adversarial dual-review convergence loop — two independent model reviewers must both approve before code ships.
+---
+
+# Santa Loop
+
+Adversarial dual-review convergence loop using the santa-method skill. Two independent reviewers — different models, no shared context — must both return NICE before code ships.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Run two independent reviewers (Claude Opus + an external model) against the current task output. Both must return NICE before the code is pushed. If either returns NAUGHTY, fix all flagged issues, commit, and re-run fresh reviewers — up to 3 rounds.
+
+## Usage
+
+```
+/santa-loop [file-or-glob | description]
+```
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Identify What to Review
+
+Determine the scope from `$ARGUMENTS` or fall back to uncommitted changes:
+
+```bash
+git diff --name-only HEAD
+```
+
+Read all changed files to build the full review context. If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies a path, file, or description, use that as the scope instead.
+
+### Step 2: Build the Rubric
+
+Construct a rubric appropriate to the file types under review. Every criterion must have an objective PASS/FAIL condition. Include at minimum:
+
+| Criterion | Pass Condition |
+|-----------|---------------|
+| Correctness | Logic is sound, no bugs, handles edge cases |
+| Security | No secrets, injection, XSS, or OWASP Top 10 issues |
+| Error handling | Errors handled explicitly, no silent swallowing |
+| Completeness | All requirements addressed, no missing cases |
+| Internal consistency | No contradictions between files or sections |
+| No regressions | Changes don't break existing behavior |
+
+Add domain-specific criteria based on file types (e.g., type safety for TS, memory safety for Rust, migration safety for SQL).
+
+### Step 3: Dual Independent Review
+
+Launch two reviewers **in parallel** using the Agent tool (both in a single message for concurrent execution). Both must complete before proceeding to the verdict gate.
+
+Each reviewer evaluates every rubric criterion as PASS or FAIL, then returns structured JSON:
+
+```json
+{
+  "verdict": "PASS" | "FAIL",
+  "checks": [
+    {"criterion": "...", "result": "PASS|FAIL", "detail": "..."}
+  ],
+  "critical_issues": ["..."],
+  "suggestions": ["..."]
+}
+```
+
+The verdict gate (Step 4) maps these to NICE/NAUGHTY: both PASS → NICE, either FAIL → NAUGHTY.
+
+#### Reviewer A: Claude Agent (always runs)
+
+Launch an Agent (subagent_type: `code-reviewer`, model: `opus`) with the full rubric + all files under review. The prompt must include:
+- The complete rubric
+- All file contents under review
+- "You are an independent quality reviewer. You have NOT seen any other review. Your job is to find problems, not to approve."
+- Return the structured JSON verdict above
+
+#### Reviewer B: External Model (Claude fallback only if no external CLI installed)
+
+First, detect which CLIs are available:
+```bash
+command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "codex" || true
+command -v gemini >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "gemini" || true
+```
+
+Build the reviewer prompt (identical rubric + instructions as Reviewer A) and write it to a unique temp file:
+```bash
+PROMPT_FILE=$(mktemp /tmp/santa-reviewer-b-XXXXXX.txt)
+cat > "$PROMPT_FILE" << 'EOF'
+... full rubric + file contents + reviewer instructions ...
+EOF
+```
+
+Use the first available CLI:
+
+**Codex CLI** (if installed)
+```bash
+codex exec --sandbox read-only -m gpt-5.4 -C "$(pwd)" - < "$PROMPT_FILE"
+rm -f "$PROMPT_FILE"
+```
+
+**Gemini CLI** (if installed and codex is not)
+```bash
+gemini -p "$(cat "$PROMPT_FILE")" -m gemini-2.5-pro
+rm -f "$PROMPT_FILE"
+```
+
+**Claude Agent fallback** (only if neither `codex` nor `gemini` is installed)
+Launch a second Claude Agent (subagent_type: `code-reviewer`, model: `opus`). Log a warning that both reviewers share the same model family — true model diversity was not achieved but context isolation is still enforced.
+
+In all cases, the reviewer must return the same structured JSON verdict as Reviewer A.
+
+### Step 4: Verdict Gate
+
+- **Both PASS** → **NICE** — proceed to Step 6 (push)
+- **Either FAIL** → **NAUGHTY** — merge all critical issues from both reviewers, deduplicate, proceed to Step 5
+
+### Step 5: Fix Cycle (NAUGHTY path)
+
+1. Display all critical issues from both reviewers
+2. Fix every flagged issue — change only what was flagged, no drive-by refactors
+3. Commit all fixes in a single commit:
+   ```
+   fix: address santa-loop review findings (round N)
+   ```
+4. Re-run Step 3 with **fresh reviewers** (no memory of previous rounds)
+5. Repeat until both return PASS
+
+**Maximum 3 iterations.** If still NAUGHTY after 3 rounds, stop and present remaining issues:
+
+```
+SANTA LOOP ESCALATION (exceeded 3 iterations)
+
+Remaining issues after 3 rounds:
+- [list all unresolved critical issues from both reviewers]
+
+Manual review required before proceeding.
+```
+
+Do NOT push.
+
+### Step 6: Push (NICE path)
+
+When both reviewers return PASS:
+
+```bash
+git push -u origin HEAD
+```
+
+### Step 7: Final Report
+
+Print the output report (see Output section below).
+
+## Output
+
+```
+SANTA VERDICT: [NICE / NAUGHTY (escalated)]
+
+Reviewer A (Claude Opus):   [PASS/FAIL]
+Reviewer B ([model used]):  [PASS/FAIL]
+
+Agreement:
+  Both flagged:      [issues caught by both]
+  Reviewer A only:   [issues only A caught]
+  Reviewer B only:   [issues only B caught]
+
+Iterations: [N]/3
+Result:     [PUSHED / ESCALATED TO USER]
+```
+
+## Notes
+
+- Reviewer A (Claude Opus) always runs — guarantees at least one strong reviewer regardless of tooling.
+- Model diversity is the goal for Reviewer B. GPT-5.4 or Gemini 2.5 Pro gives true independence — different training data, different biases, different blind spots. The Claude-only fallback still provides value via context isolation but loses model diversity.
+- Strongest available models are used: Opus for Reviewer A, GPT-5.4 or Gemini 2.5 Pro for Reviewer B.
+- External reviewers run with `--sandbox read-only` (Codex) to prevent repo mutation during review.
+- Fresh reviewers each round prevents anchoring bias from prior findings.
+- The rubric is the most important input. Tighten it if reviewers rubber-stamp or flag subjective style issues.
+- Commits happen on NAUGHTY rounds so fixes are preserved even if the loop is interrupted.
+- Push only happens after NICE — never mid-loop.