Context
An RLCR session analyzing the methodology itself identified several improvement opportunities. These are presented as patterns observed across a completed session, with concrete suggestions.
1. Post-Acceptance Review Gap
Pattern: Acceptance criteria were declared met, but 11 subsequent correction rounds were needed for runtime correctness issues (restart behavior, resource lifecycle, auth boundaries, cross-app isolation).
Suggestion: Add a mandatory "runtime edge-case review" phase after acceptance criteria are met, focused on:
- Container restart / retry behavior
- Socket / thread / file descriptor lifecycle
- Authentication boundary completeness
- Cross-app data isolation
2. Evidence-Quality Spiral
Pattern: Three rounds were consumed trying to produce acceptable parity evidence because each round's evidence was incomplete (wrong config, stale artifacts, non-clean trials).
Suggestion: Add an "evidence quality checklist" to acceptance criteria. Before claiming any AC is met, the implementer must self-certify:
3. Diminishing Returns in Late Review Rounds
Pattern: Late review rounds each found only 1-2 narrowly scoped issues, suggesting the review scope should have been consolidated.
Suggestion: Implement thematic review rounds (e.g., one round for auth, one for network lifecycle, one for data integrity) or reviewer rotation to catch different blind spots in a single focused pass.
4. Plan Compliance Drift
Pattern: Some plan tasks were executed out of sequence or skipped until caught by review.
Suggestion: Add a "plan compliance checkpoint" before claiming completion, verifying: every task executed, every AC verified by its specified method, no out-of-sequence execution without documented rationale, and every deferred item has justification + revisit trigger.
5. Round Budget Escalation
Pattern: 19 rounds for a single stage suggests poor initial estimation and a "just one more round" trap.
Suggestion: Implement a round budget with escalation triggers. After 2 consecutive rejections for the same AC, reset and reassess the approach rather than continuing incremental fixes.
6. Summary Validation
Pattern: Round summaries contained placeholder text and unsubstantiated claims.
Suggestion: Add summary validation rules to the round contract: no placeholder text, every completion claim references verifiable evidence, and external-state claims include reviewer-verification instructions.
Context
An RLCR session analyzing the methodology itself identified several improvement opportunities. These are presented as patterns observed across a completed session, with concrete suggestions.
1. Post-Acceptance Review Gap
Pattern: Acceptance criteria were declared met, but 11 subsequent correction rounds were needed for runtime correctness issues (restart behavior, resource lifecycle, auth boundaries, cross-app isolation).
Suggestion: Add a mandatory "runtime edge-case review" phase after acceptance criteria are met, focused on:
2. Evidence-Quality Spiral
Pattern: Three rounds were consumed trying to produce acceptable parity evidence because each round's evidence was incomplete (wrong config, stale artifacts, non-clean trials).
Suggestion: Add an "evidence quality checklist" to acceptance criteria. Before claiming any AC is met, the implementer must self-certify:
3. Diminishing Returns in Late Review Rounds
Pattern: Late review rounds each found only 1-2 narrowly scoped issues, suggesting the review scope should have been consolidated.
Suggestion: Implement thematic review rounds (e.g., one round for auth, one for network lifecycle, one for data integrity) or reviewer rotation to catch different blind spots in a single focused pass.
4. Plan Compliance Drift
Pattern: Some plan tasks were executed out of sequence or skipped until caught by review.
Suggestion: Add a "plan compliance checkpoint" before claiming completion, verifying: every task executed, every AC verified by its specified method, no out-of-sequence execution without documented rationale, and every deferred item has justification + revisit trigger.
5. Round Budget Escalation
Pattern: 19 rounds for a single stage suggests poor initial estimation and a "just one more round" trap.
Suggestion: Implement a round budget with escalation triggers. After 2 consecutive rejections for the same AC, reset and reassess the approach rather than continuing incremental fixes.
6. Summary Validation
Pattern: Round summaries contained placeholder text and unsubstantiated claims.
Suggestion: Add summary validation rules to the round contract: no placeholder text, every completion claim references verifiable evidence, and external-state claims include reviewer-verification instructions.