davila7--claude-code-templates/cli-tool/components/loops/engineering/adversarial-review-loop.md

name, description, category, interval, stop-condition, components, tags

name	description	category	interval	stop-condition	components	tags
adversarial-review-loop	Has a second, independent model review every change before merge so two different reviewers must agree — code only lands when both clear the bar.	engineering	15m	The implementing agent and the independent cross-model reviewer both approve with no blocking findings and tests pass.	agent:expert-advisors/architect-review command:git-workflow/gemini-review command:git-workflow/pr-review	code-review cross-model quality loop

Adversarial-Review Loop

Loop Engineering — the verifier inside the loop is the hard part, and an agent grading its own homework will delete the failing test and call it done. This loop puts a second, different model in the reviewer seat: two model families must agree before code lands.

🎯 Goal

Implement a change, then have an independent cross-model reviewer argue against it. Iterate on findings until both the builder and the outside reviewer sign off — no self-grading.

⏱️ Schedule

Suggested interval: 15m (or run until the change is merge-ready).

▶️ Run it

/loop 15m "Implement the change. Then have a different model review it adversarially for correctness, security and design. Address every blocking finding and re-run tests. Land it only when both the builder and the independent reviewer agree there are no blocking findings. Max 5 review rounds."

🔁 Iteration steps

1. Build — implement the next slice.
2. Cross-review — run /gemini-review so a different model family critiques the diff.
3. Reason — collect blocking findings from the outside reviewer.
4. Act — fix them; architect-review validates the revision; re-run tests.
5. Observe — re-review with /pr-review; loop until both sides agree (cap the rounds).

🛑 Stopping condition

Both reviewers report zero blocking findings and tests pass — or the review-round cap is reached and the loop hands off with the open findings.

💰 Budget & guardrails

A --max-iter style cap on review rounds and a severity threshold: only findings at/above the bar block. Two independent models must agree, so neither can rubber-stamp itself.

🧩 Referenced components

• agent:expert-advisors/architect-review — the in-house reviewer.
• command:git-workflow/gemini-review — an independent, different-model review.
• command:git-workflow/pr-review — structured re-review checklist.

💡 Example

The builder ships an auth change; the cross-model reviewer flags a timing-attack risk the in-house reviewer missed. The loop fixes it, both agree, and only then does it land.