rereview-loop

An automated review-and-fix loop that runs the `/rereview` command repeatedly until the code has no reported issues or the loop stops.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it for repeated pre-merge code reviews. You can choose the code scope, maximum number of cycles, and which issue severities to fix automatically.
Why use it?
It removes the need to manually repeat review, fix problems, and review again. It can also stop when it reaches a set iteration limit or makes no progress.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/drn/dots/rereview-loop
Any agent
npx skills add drn/dots --skill rereview-loop
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/drn/dots

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 57 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,524 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00057 $0.03524
Opus 5 $0.00028 $0.01762
Sonnet 5 $0.00011 $0.00705
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00352

Measured 3d ago against content hash 23b5b689a9b0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

rereview-loop scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

agents/skills/rereview-loop/SKILL.md · 283 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 283 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Re-Review Loop

Run /rereview repeatedly: review → fix the findings → re-review → repeat. Stop when all three reviewers approve with zero BLOCKING and zero WARNING findings, when the iteration cap is hit, or when an iteration makes no progress.

Arguments

  • $ARGUMENTS - Optional. Forms:
    • <branch-or-range> - passed through to /rereview as its scope
    • max=<N> - cap the number of review→fix iterations (default 5)
    • severity=blocking - only auto-fix BLOCKING findings (default fixes BLOCKING + WARNING)
    • severity=all - auto-fix BLOCKING + WARNING + INFO
    • Any combination, space-separated. Example: /rereview-loop max=3 severity=blocking

Context

  • Current branch: !git branch --show-current
  • Base ref: !git branch -r 2>/dev/null | grep -oE 'origin/(main|master)' | head -1
  • Git status: !git status --short
  • Commits vs main: !git log origin/main..HEAD --oneline 2>/dev/null | head -20
  • Commits vs master: !git log origin/master..HEAD --oneline 2>/dev/null | head -20

Overview

You are the lead coordinator for an iterative re-review loop. Your job is to drive findings to zero by alternating between review (delegated to /rereview) and fixes (applied here).

Core principle: trust the reviewers. Fix what they flag, do not argue with the verdict to escape the loop. The loop exits when reviewers say it's clean -- not when you decide it's clean.

Hard rules:

  • NEVER skip, weaken, or reword reviewer findings to make them "easier to satisfy."
  • NEVER mark a finding addressed without making (or consciously rejecting) a code change.
  • NEVER cap the loop early just because the remaining findings look minor -- run to the cap or to clean.
  • NEVER fix a finding by deleting the test that catches it.

Phase 0: Parse arguments and initialize state

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

max_iterations = 5             (override with max=<N>)
severity_filter = "blocking+warning"   (override with severity=blocking | severity=all)
rereview_scope = ""            (any non-key=value token; passed to /rereview verbatim)
iteration = 0
prior_blocking_count = -1      (B count from previous iteration; -1 = no prior)
prior_warning_count = -1       (W count from previous iteration; -1 = no prior)
prior_info_count = -1          (I count from previous iteration; -1 = no prior)
last_iteration_committed = false   (did the previous iteration produce a commit?)
total_pushbacks = 0            (cumulative pushbacks across all iterations)
total_findings_addressed = 0   (cumulative findings touched, for the pushback rate)
stashed = false                (set true if Phase 0 stashes unrelated work)

Read the full file on GitHub · 283 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 3d ago First seen · 283 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 23b5b689a9b0

Subscribe to this mod's changes

rereview-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository drn/dots (23 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 3,524 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.

obra/superpowers · 21 tokens

brainstorming

You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.

obra/superpowers · 37 tokens

auto-perf-optimize

Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.

microsoft/vscode · 62 tokens

chat-perf

Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.

microsoft/vscode · 51 tokens

chat-pet-sprite-creation

Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.

microsoft/vscode · 53 tokens

cpu-profile-analysis

Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…

microsoft/vscode · 71 tokens