The Fix Loop
Part of superpowers:subagent-driven-development. The task review reported spec ❌, a Critical or Important finding, or a ⚠️ item you confirmed as a real gap.
Before the loop starts, two routes leave it immediately:
- Record Minor findings in the progress ledger as you go
(
Task <N>: minor (deferred): <one-liner>), and point the final whole-branch review at that list so it can triage which must be fixed before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard. Minor findings never enter the loop. - A finding labeled plan-mandated — or any finding that conflicts with what the plan's text requires — is yours to rule on: weigh the finding against the plan text, decide with the spec as the binding authority, and ledger the ruling before you act on it. Do not dismiss the finding because the plan mandates it, and do not dispatch a fix that contradicts the plan without a recorded ruling. Everything else enters the loop. A fix round is one fix dispatch plus one scoped re-review. Five rounds maximum per task:
Rounds 1-3 — resume the original implementer. Send it the open findings verbatim. Its context is intact: it knows the task, the code, and its own choices. If your harness cannot send another message to a live subagent, dispatch a fresh implementer carrying the brief path, the report-file path, and the findings — the report file is the persistent memory either way.
Rounds 4-5 — dispatch a fresh implementer on a more capable model (per SKILL.md's Model Selection), with the brief path, the report-file path, the open findings, and this framing: "A prior implementer attempted this task [N] times; you own it now. Read the report file for what was tried." A loop that survives three resumes usually means the implementer cannot see its own problem — fresh eyes and a capability bump in one move.
Every round, either way: the implementer fixes, re-runs the tests covering the amended code, appends its fix report to the same report file, and returns the short contract. Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm the fix report contains the covering tests, the command run, and the output; dispatch the re-review once all three are present. Name the covering test files in the fix message — a one-line fix does not need the whole suite.
The re-review is scoped. Run bash scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE FIX_BASE HEAD
where FIX_BASE is the head the previous review saw, and dispatch
re-review-prompt.md with the findings list, the
brief, the report file, and the printed diff path. The re-reviewer verdicts
each finding ADDRESSED or NOT ADDRESSED and flags new breakage in the fix
diff only. New Critical/Important breakage in the fix diff joins the open
findings list. Out-of-scope observations go to the ledger as deferred
minors — they never extend the loop.
After each round, append to the ledger:
Task <N>: fix round <R>/5 (<X> addressed, <Y> open — <finding one-liners>; commits <a7>..<b7>)
Never fix findings yourself in the controller session — your context stays clean for coordination, and controller fixes skip review.
The breaker. When round 5's re-review still leaves findings open, stop dispatching. Adjudicate each open finding yourself — you hold the plan and the cross-task context the reviewer lacks:
- The reviewer is wrong, or the point is contestable: park it —
Task <N>: parked — <finding> — Ruling: <why the code stands>. The final review sees both sides. - Real, but nothing downstream builds on it: park it the same way, with a ruling that says it's real and deferred.
- Real and load-bearing — a later task builds on it, or it reveals a
plan defect: rule on the smallest change that unblocks the dependent work,
ledger it as
Task <N>: Ruling: <finding> — <what you decided and why>, and carry it into the next task's dispatch. Parking a structural failure silently lets every dependent task build on it. Stop only when the defect leaves every path forward a guess.
Adjudicate only at the cap. Adjudicating earlier to end a loop is pre-judging with a different name. Every adjudication is a ledger entry — a silent discard is forbidden.