reviewer-protocol

Enforce reviewer rejection workflows with lockout semantics on revisions.

49|6|Updated Aug 24, 2021
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/webmaxru/bpm-counter --skill reviewer-protocol-webmaxru
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: reviewer-protocol
Source: https://github.com/webmaxru/bpm-counter/tree/main/.copilot/skills/reviewer-protocol
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/webmaxru/bpm-counter --skill reviewer-protocol-webmaxru

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Rejection workflows in collaborative environments often allow the original author to self-revise after a rejection, leading to feedback loops and diluted accountability. The reviewer-protocol enforces strict lockout semantics so that only non-original agents can revise rejected artifacts, ensuring independent and auditable revisions.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Rejection enforcement: On rejection, the original author is locked out from the next revision and a different agent is assigned to revise.
  • Reassignment or escalation: Reviewers may specify either reassigning to a different agent or escalating to a subject-matter expert for targeted fixes.
  • Mechanical enforcement: The Coordinator verifies the revision agent is not the original author and enforces the policy across the entire revision cycle.

Quick Start

Describe how to implement a reviewer rejection workflow with strict lockout semantics in your collaboration tool.

Frequently Asked Questions about reviewer-protocol

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I enforce a strict code review workflow where the original author is locked out after rejection?

Reviewer-driven rejection workflows enforce strict lockout semantics so that only non-original agents can revise rejected artifacts. This prevents the original author from self-revising, eliminating feedback loops and diluted accountability in collaborative environments.

How do I reassign a rejected artifact to a different agent or escalate it to a subject-matter expert?

Reviewer-driven rejection workflows enforce strict lockout semantics so that only non-original agents can revise rejected artifacts. This prevents the original author from self-revising, eliminating feedback loops and diluted accountability in collaborative environments.

Why does my rejection workflow allow the original author to self-revise and create feedback loops?

Rejection workflows allow self-revision because they lack strict lockout semantics. Implementing a reviewer-protocol enforces deterministic behavior by locking out the original author and requiring a different agent to handle the revision.

Can I use a Coordinator to mechanically enforce rejection policies across an entire artifact revision cycle?

Yes, a Coordinator can mechanically enforce rejection policies across an entire artifact revision cycle. It verifies the revision agent is not the original author, ensuring deterministic reassignment or escalation when rejections occur.

What is the best way to prevent diluted accountability in collaborative code review cycles?

The best way to prevent diluted accountability is enforcing reviewer-based revision control with strict lockout semantics. This ensures only independent non-original agents revise rejected artifacts, creating an auditable revision trail.