python-factory-plugin/skills/ralph-review/SKILL.md
Autonomous review loop. Spawns agents for /review-plan and /fix-plan up to N times until the plan is approved. Usage: /ralph-review [iterations] plan-file
npx skillsauth add ghiret/python-template ralph-reviewInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Parse arguments:
When reading companion skills, prefer .agents/skills/<name>/SKILL.md if it exists
(Codex layout). Otherwise use .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md (Claude layout).
Also read _shared/html-conventions.md before the loop. Plan review reports should be written under agent_docs/reports/reviews/, and HTML plans should remain HTML unless the user explicitly requests conversion.
YOU MUST COMPLETE EVERY SINGLE ITERATION from 1 to N. The ONLY exception is an explicit APPROVED verdict from the review agent. Do NOT stop early because the plan "looks good", because changes are "minor", because you think further iterations are "unnecessary", or for any other reason. If the verdict is REQUEST CHANGES, you MUST continue to the next iteration — no exceptions.
After the LAST iteration completes, output a summary table like this:
| Iteration | Verdict | Changes Made |
|-----------|------------------|--------------|
| 1 of 5 | REQUEST CHANGES | Yes |
| 2 of 5 | REQUEST CHANGES | Yes |
| 3 of 5 | APPROVED | N/A (stopped)|
For each iteration i = 1, 2, 3, ..., N (you MUST go in order, one at a time):
Create task "Review iteration {i} of {N}" and set to IN_PROGRESS
Announce: "=== REVIEW ITERATION {i} OF {N} ==="
Spawn an Agent with subagent_type "general-purpose" and this prompt:
You are reviewing an implementation plan (iteration {i} of {N}).
Plan file: {plan_file}
Read the
review-plancompanion skill using the Skill Path Resolution rule above and execute its FULL review process on the plan file. Write the review report artifact underagent_docs/reports/reviews/using the shared HTML report skeleton.You MUST output the complete review report with the exact verdict format: Review Status: APPROVED or Review Status: REQUEST CHANGES
Do not skip any of the four inspection points (Redundancy, Architecture, Testability, Phase Structure).
Wait for the agent to complete
Read the agent's output carefully and extract the verdict
Spawn an Agent with subagent_type "general-purpose" and this prompt:
You are fixing an implementation plan based on review feedback (iteration {i} of {N}).
Plan file: {plan_file}
The review produced these findings: {paste the full review report from Step A here}
Read the
fix-plancompanion skill using the Skill Path Resolution rule above and execute its fix process on the plan file. Apply ALL recommended changes from the review. If the plan is HTML or HTML-like markup, preserve HTML and make it executable with<section data-phase="N" data-title="...">,<ul class="tasks">, and<section class="verification">. If the plan is Markdown, preserve Markdown and use## Phase N: Title,- [ ]task checkboxes, and### Verificationsubsections. When done, announce what was changed.
Wait for the agent to complete
Verify the plan file was modified (check git diff on the file)
If this is the LAST iteration (i == N):
Otherwise: YOU MUST proceed to iteration {i+1}. Do NOT stop here.
COMPLETION IS NON-NEGOTIABLE. Re-read the MANDATORY COMPLETION RULE above before each iteration. The user is paying for {N} iterations and expects all of them to run.
development
Review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", "review UX", or "check my site against best practices".
development
Post-execution QA. Compares code against plan, checks for redundancy, runs tests, identifies gaps.
testing
Fast test-quality audit. Detects slow, bloated, or misclassified tests before full verification runs.
testing
Lead Architect review of implementation plans. Checks for redundancy, architectural fit, and testability. Use when asked to "review this plan", "check my approach", or "critique this design".