Code ReviewMedium risk
Maker-Checker Loop
Use one agent to implement and another independent reviewer to check the result.
What this Loop Engineering template does
Implement a change with a maker agent, then have an independent checker verify it before a human merges.
The checker must be a separate, read-only process from the maker. Human approval is required before merge.
When to use it
Higher-risk changes
Cross-model review
Separation of duties
When not to use it
Trivial changes
Cases where no independent reviewer is available
Validation checks
validation
✓Maker output passes tests
✓Checker report is generated
✓Blocking issues are resolved or escalated
Boundaries & stop rule
!Checker must not be the same process that made the change
!Checker should be read-only unless explicitly authorized
!Human approval required before merge
Stop rule — Stop when the checker passes and a human approves, or escalate if blocking issues remain after 3 maker-checker rounds. If maker and checker disagree, summarize both positions and escalate to a human.
Copy the loop prompt
claude-goal.txt
/goal Implement a change with a maker agent, then have an independent checker verify it before a human merges.Work toward this goal until all validation checks pass or the stop rule is reached.Loop cycle:1. Discovery — Read the latest signal for this template before acting: CI output, issue detail, review comment, dataset report, or content brief.2. Handoff — Hand the work to one agent in an isolated branch, worktree, or clearly scoped session. Keep final approval with a human.3. Verification — Use an independent review pass to confirm the result, inspect the diff or artifact, and reject shortcut work.4. Persistence — Save a short run note with the signal reviewed, actions taken, validation result, and next recommended step.5. Scheduling — Run manually until the loop is reliable; only then consider a scheduled or event-triggered run.Context:The checker must be a separate, read-only process from the maker. Human approval is required before merge.Validation:Maker output passes testsChecker report is generatedBlocking issues are resolved or escalatedIndependent checker:Use an independent review pass to confirm the result, inspect the diff or artifact, and reject shortcut work.Boundaries:Checker must not be the same process that made the changeChecker should be read-only unless explicitly authorizedHuman approval required before mergeStop rule:Stop when the checker passes and a human approves, or escalate if blocking issues remain after 3 maker-checker rounds.Maximum iterations: 4Budget:Stop before exceeding the agreed per-run token budget.Human approval:Required before merge, deploy, delete, purchase, or external communication.Fallback:If maker and checker disagree, summarize both positions and escalate to a human.Do not delete tests, bypass checks, or modify unrelated files just to satisfy the validation condition. If blocked, stop and summarize the blocker, attempted fixes, and recommended next action.
Failure modes to watch
Maker and checker share the same context
Checker gains write access and silently “fixes” issues
Endless maker-checker ping-pong
Merge without human approval
Loop Engineering FAQ
A reviewer that shares the maker's context inherits its blind spots. Independence is what makes the check meaningful.