Santa loop

--- 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 VE