local_swarm/AGENT_REVIEW.md

Agent Reviewer Rules

⚠️ IMPORTANT: This document is for REVIEW AGENTS who handle commits, PRs, and code reviews. Regular agents follow AGENT_WORKER.md for implementation tasks and DO NOT make commits.

Review Philosophy

Mission: Prevent the circular development patterns identified in commit history.

Standards:

• Reject code that doesn't meet quality bar
• Ask for tests, don't accept "I'll add them later"
• Check token counts for prompt changes
• Verify architectural consistency
• Demand clear error messages

Reviewer Authority:

• Can block PR for: missing tests, token bloat, architecture violations
• Cannot approve own code
• Must provide constructive feedback with specific fixes

Review Checklist

Phase 1: Structure & Hygiene (Block if failed)

• Branch naming follows convention

  • Format: type/description (e.g., fix/tool-parsing)
  • Not: quick-fix, temp-branch, dev

• Commit messages are clear

  • Format: type(scope): description
  • No: fix stuff, WIP, asdf, omg finally
  • Each commit should be reviewable independently

• No production debugging code

  • Search for: print(, console.log, debugger, TODO, FIXME, XXX
  • Check: No commented-out code blocks
  • Check: No temporary files committed

• Git history is clean

  • No "fix typo" commits after initial commit
  • No "WIP" commits in PR
  • No merge commits (rebase instead)
  • Squash fixup commits

Phase 2: Code Quality (Block if failed)

• Tests exist and pass

  • Unit tests for new functions
  • Integration tests for API changes
  • Run: pytest -v (must pass)
  • Coverage: ≥80% for new code
  • BLOCKING: No tests = No merge

• Type hints present

  • All function parameters typed
  • All return values typed
  • Run: mypy src/ (must pass with zero errors)

• No code smells

  • No functions > 50 lines
  • No files > 300 lines
  • No indentation > 3 levels deep
  • No circular imports
  • No duplicate code (>3 lines copied)

• Error handling is robust

  • No bare except: clauses
  • All errors have clear messages
  • No silent failures
  • Edge cases handled

• Documentation is adequate

  • All public functions have docstrings
  • Complex logic has inline comments
  • README updated if user-facing change
  • Architecture doc updated if pattern changes

Phase 3: Token Budget (Block if failed)

For any prompt/instruction changes:

• Token count documented

  • Before: X tokens
  • After: Y tokens
  • Change: +/- Z tokens

• Within budget

  • System prompt + instructions ≤ 2000 tokens (HARD LIMIT)
  • Leaves ≥ 50% context window for user input
  • BLOCKING: Over budget = Request reduction

• Efficient wording

  • No redundant examples
  • No verbose explanations
  • Prefer code over prose

Token Counting Command:

# Count tokens in a string
echo "Your prompt here" | python -c "import sys; import tiktoken; enc = tiktoken.get_encoding('cl100k_base'); print(len(enc.encode(sys.stdin.read())))"

Phase 4: Architecture (Block if failed)

• Consistent with ARCHITECTURE.md

  • No new patterns without updating docs
  • No mixing of concerns
  • Follows existing module structure

• No architecture changes in fixes

  • Bug fixes should not refactor
  • Refactors should be separate PRs
  • Exception: If fix requires arch change, document WHY

• Parser rules

  • Only ONE parser per format
  • No alternative parsing paths
  • Clear regex patterns
  • Handles all documented cases

• No feature flags in core

  • Code should not have if config.get("ENABLE_X"):
  • Pick one approach, remove old one
  • A/B testing only in separate branch

Phase 5: Research & Continuous Learning

For significant changes (>100 lines or new algorithms):

• Research documented

  • Check research/ folder for related findings
  • PR description mentions alternatives considered
  • Links to sources (docs, papers, repos)
  • Not: "I thought this would work"
  • Yes: "Based on [source], this approach handles [case] better than [alternative]"

• Best practices followed

  • Implementation matches current language/framework conventions
  • No deprecated patterns
  • Modern Python features used appropriately (3.9+)

• No reinvention

  • Check if standard library solves the problem
  • Check if well-maintained package exists
  • If custom implementation needed, document WHY

Research Documentation Requirements:

## Research
- Alternatives considered: [list]
- Sources: [links]
- Decision: [why chosen approach]
- Benchmarks: [if applicable]

Phase 6: Logic Correctness

• Logic is sound

  • Read through the code
  • Check edge cases
  • Verify error conditions
  • Question anything unclear

• No performance regressions

  • No blocking I/O in async functions (unless wrapped)
  • No memory leaks
  • No N+1 queries
  • Reasonable algorithmic complexity

• Security check

  • No SQL injection vectors
  • No command injection (bash execution sanitized)
  • Path traversal protection (for file ops)
  • No secrets in code

Review Report Format

After review, write a report to reports/PR-{number}-{branch}.md:

# Review Report: PR #{number} - {branch}

**Reviewer:** {your name}
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Status:** [APPROVED / CHANGES_REQUESTED / BLOCKED]

## Summary
Brief description of what this PR does and overall quality assessment.

## Detailed Findings

### ✅ Passed
- [List items that passed review]
- [Be specific: "Tests cover 85% of new code"]

### ⚠️ Warnings (Non-blocking)
- [Minor issues that don't block merge]
- [Style suggestions]
- [Future improvements]

### ❌ Blockers (Must fix)
1. **[Category]** [Specific issue]
   - **Location:** `file.py:123`
   - **Problem:** [What's wrong]
   - **Fix:** [Exactly what to change]
   - **Why:** [Why this matters]

2. **[Category]** [Specific issue]
   - ...

## Token Impact Analysis
- Component: [what changed]
- Before: [X] tokens
- After: [Y] tokens
- Impact: [+/- Z] tokens
- Within budget: [Yes/No]

## Test Coverage
- New code coverage: [X]%
- Tests pass: [Yes/No]
- Integration tests: [Present/Missing]

## Architecture Review
- Follows existing patterns: [Yes/No]
- Introduces new dependencies: [List if any]
- Breaking changes: [Yes/No - explain if yes]

## Research Review
- Alternatives considered: [Listed/None]
- Sources cited: [Yes/No]
- Best practices followed: [Yes/No]
- Research documented: [Yes/No - location]

## Code Quality Score
- Structure: [0-10]
- Testing: [0-10]
- Documentation: [0-10]
- Logic: [0-10]
- **Overall: [0-10]**

## Action Items
- [ ] [Specific fix needed]
- [ ] [Specific fix needed]
- [ ] [Test to add]

## Verdict
[APPROVED / CHANGES_REQUESTED / BLOCKED]

**If CHANGES_REQUESTED:** 
- Address all blockers
- Re-request review when ready

**If BLOCKED:**
- Major issues require architecture discussion
- Schedule meeting before continuing

Severity Levels

🔴 BLOCKING (Cannot merge)

• Missing tests for new functionality
• Token budget exceeded
• Bare except: clauses
• Production debugging code (print statements)
• Breaking changes without documentation
• Security vulnerabilities
• Tests failing
• Type check errors
• Architecture violations

🟡 CHANGES_REQUESTED (Fix before merge)

• Unclear variable names
• Missing docstrings
• Inefficient algorithms
• Missing error handling
• Unclear commit messages
• Minor style issues

🟢 APPROVED (Optional suggestions)

• Style preferences
• Future improvements
• Optional refactors

Common Issues to Watch For

Issue 1: Tool Parsing Duplication

# ❌ WRONG - Multiple parsers
def parse_tools_v1(text): ...
def parse_tools_v2(text): ...
def parse_tools_legacy(text): ...

# ✅ CORRECT - Single parser
TOOL_PATTERN = r'TOOL:\s*(\w+)\s*\nARGUMENTS:\s*(\{[^}]*\})'

Check: Search for "def parse" - should be ONE per format.

Issue 2: Token Bloat

# ❌ WRONG - Too verbose
SYSTEM_PROMPT = """
You are an AI assistant. Here are detailed instructions...
[2000 words of explanation]
[10 examples]
"""

# ✅ CORRECT - Concise
SYSTEM_PROMPT = """Use TOOL: name\nARGUMENTS: {...} format. Available: read, write, bash."""

Check: Count tokens, verify < 2000.

Issue 3: Architecture Drift

# ❌ WRONG - Mixing concerns in one file
# src/api/routes.py
def handle_request(): ...
def parse_tools(): ...
def execute_tool(): ...
def format_response(): ...

# ✅ CORRECT - Separated
# src/api/routes.py - only HTTP handling
# src/tools/parser.py - only parsing
# src/tools/executor.py - only execution

Check: Each module has ONE responsibility.

Issue 4: Debug Code Left In

# ❌ WRONG
def process(data):
    print(f"DEBUG: data={data}")  # REMOVE THIS
    result = transform(data)
    print(f"DEBUG: result={result}")  # REMOVE THIS
    return result

# ✅ CORRECT
logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)

def process(data):
    logger.debug("Processing data", extra={"data_size": len(data)})
    return transform(data)

Check: grep -r "print(" src/ --include="*.py" | grep -v "^#"

Issue 5: Missing Error Context

# ❌ WRONG
raise ValueError("Invalid input")

# ✅ CORRECT
raise ValueError(f"Invalid model format: '{model_str}'. Expected: 'name:size:quant' (e.g., 'qwen:7b:q4')")

Check: All errors explain what was expected vs received.

Review Workflow

1. First Pass: Structure (5 min)

   • Check branch name, commits, no debug code
   • If failed → Write report, BLOCK

2. Second Pass: Quality (10 min)

   • Run tests, check types, review code
   • If failed → Write report, CHANGES_REQUESTED

3. Third Pass: Deep Dive (15 min)

   • Read logic, check edge cases
   • Verify token counts
   • Check architecture
   • Write detailed report

4. Final Decision (5 min)

   • APPROVE / CHANGES_REQUESTED / BLOCK
   • Write report to reports/ folder
   • Post summary in PR comments

Total time per review: 30-35 minutes

Reviewer Self-Check

Before submitting review:

• I ran all tests locally
• I checked type hints
• I counted tokens (if applicable)
• I read every line of changed code
• My feedback is specific and actionable
• I explained WHY for each blocker
• I wrote a report to reports/ folder

Escalation

Escalate to architecture discussion if:

• PR changes core patterns
• Token budget cannot be met
• Two reviewers disagree
• Breaking changes proposed

Don't just approve to be nice. Don't let technical debt accumulate.

Report Storage

All reports go in reports/ folder:

reports/
├── PR-123-fix-tool-parsing.md
├── PR-124-add-federation.md
├── PR-125-refactor-consensus.md
└── README.md  # Index of all reviews

This folder is gitignored - reports stay local.

Generate index with:

ls -1 reports/PR-*.md | sort -t'-' -k2 -n > reports/README.md

---

Remember: You're the last line of defense against technical debt. Be thorough, be kind, be strict.