Summary
After analyzing a completed RLCR session, we identified 6 concrete methodology improvements that could reduce round count and catch integration-boundary issues earlier.
Suggestion 1: Pre-Mortem Risk Surface Checklist
Pattern observed: All genuine issues discovered during review were at integration boundaries (constructor ABI, cross-component forwarding, fractional value handling, positional argument interpretation).
Improvement: Before Round 0 implementation, require the planning phase to produce a "Risk Surface Checklist" with prompts like: "Will new constructor parameters break existing positional callers?" and "Will new forwarded kwargs break components with strict constructors?" This would shift some later-round work into Round 0.
Suggestion 2: Standardize "Required Implementation Plan" in All Reviews
Pattern observed: Round 0 review provided a detailed implementation plan for missing tests; later reviews identified problems but left the solution design to the implementation round.
Improvement: Require the review template to always include a "Required implementation plan" or "Suggested fix approach" subsection for any P2+ finding, even if the fix is trivial.
Suggestion 3: Auto-Reject Placeholder Summaries
Pattern observed: Round 0 summary contained unfilled template placeholders.
Improvement: Add a lightweight pre-review validation that scans the summary file for placeholder patterns (e.g., "[Describe", "[List", "[what changed]") and blocks review submission until they are resolved.
Suggestion 4: Review Focus Prompt for Integration Boundaries
Pattern observed: All P2 findings were integration-boundary issues, not unit-level correctness issues.
Improvement: Add an explicit instruction to the reviewer prompt: "Prioritize integration boundary analysis: constructor contracts, shared configuration structures, cross-module data flow, and backward compatibility with existing callers."
Suggestion 5: Conditional Full Review Round
Pattern observed: The session completed successfully without ever reaching the configured full_review_round.
Improvement: Make the full review round conditional. If the preceding round's review returned zero P2+ findings and the mainline verdict was COMPLETE or ADVANCED, skip the full review round and proceed directly to finalize.
Suggestion 6: Cross-Reference Review Findings with Plan Evolution Log
Pattern observed: The Plan Evolution Log was maintained manually in the goal tracker, but the review findings that drove those evolutions were in separate files.
Improvement: Require the review result to include a "Plan Evolution Required" subsection that explicitly states which ACs need refinement and why. The implementation round can then copy this directly into the Plan Evolution Log, reducing manual transcription errors.
Summary
After analyzing a completed RLCR session, we identified 6 concrete methodology improvements that could reduce round count and catch integration-boundary issues earlier.
Suggestion 1: Pre-Mortem Risk Surface Checklist
Pattern observed: All genuine issues discovered during review were at integration boundaries (constructor ABI, cross-component forwarding, fractional value handling, positional argument interpretation).
Improvement: Before Round 0 implementation, require the planning phase to produce a "Risk Surface Checklist" with prompts like: "Will new constructor parameters break existing positional callers?" and "Will new forwarded kwargs break components with strict constructors?" This would shift some later-round work into Round 0.
Suggestion 2: Standardize "Required Implementation Plan" in All Reviews
Pattern observed: Round 0 review provided a detailed implementation plan for missing tests; later reviews identified problems but left the solution design to the implementation round.
Improvement: Require the review template to always include a "Required implementation plan" or "Suggested fix approach" subsection for any P2+ finding, even if the fix is trivial.
Suggestion 3: Auto-Reject Placeholder Summaries
Pattern observed: Round 0 summary contained unfilled template placeholders.
Improvement: Add a lightweight pre-review validation that scans the summary file for placeholder patterns (e.g., "[Describe", "[List", "[what changed]") and blocks review submission until they are resolved.
Suggestion 4: Review Focus Prompt for Integration Boundaries
Pattern observed: All P2 findings were integration-boundary issues, not unit-level correctness issues.
Improvement: Add an explicit instruction to the reviewer prompt: "Prioritize integration boundary analysis: constructor contracts, shared configuration structures, cross-module data flow, and backward compatibility with existing callers."
Suggestion 5: Conditional Full Review Round
Pattern observed: The session completed successfully without ever reaching the configured
full_review_round.Improvement: Make the full review round conditional. If the preceding round's review returned zero P2+ findings and the mainline verdict was COMPLETE or ADVANCED, skip the full review round and proceed directly to finalize.
Suggestion 6: Cross-Reference Review Findings with Plan Evolution Log
Pattern observed: The Plan Evolution Log was maintained manually in the goal tracker, but the review findings that drove those evolutions were in separate files.
Improvement: Require the review result to include a "Plan Evolution Required" subsection that explicitly states which ACs need refinement and why. The implementation round can then copy this directly into the Plan Evolution Log, reducing manual transcription errors.