# Loop Hardening Review

ID: packet:20260511T063844Z-loop-hardening-review
Type: Packet
Status: consumed
Created: 2026-05-11 06:38 UTC
Updated: 2026-05-11 06:41 UTC
Target: plan:20260510-core-loop-hardening
Packet Kind: Ralph
Mode: review
Context Style: live-reference
Worker: subagent
Branch: main
Worktree: /Users/alexanderbutler/code_projects/personal/agent-loom
Risk: medium - review concerns core protocol language that future agents will follow.
Review Lens: audit, protocol semantics, shaping/slicing, Ralph handoff, evidence sufficiency

## Mission

Perform a fresh-context review of the Core loop hardening changes. Challenge whether the changed corpus addresses the observed failure modes without overfitting eval-specific complaints into the shipped protocol.

## Context Bundle

Records:

- `research:20260510-loom-loop-failure-analysis` - source analysis and recommendations.
- `evidence:20260510-opencode-session-loop-failures` - observed eval transcript and record facts.
- `plan:20260510-core-loop-hardening` - decomposition and current state.
- `ticket:20260510-shaping-slicing-doctrine` - shaping/slicing acceptance.
- `ticket:20260510-ralph-audit-handoff-doctrine` - packet/audit handoff acceptance.
- `ticket:20260510-playbook-doc-alignment` - playbook/doc alignment acceptance.
- `ticket:20260510-loop-hardening-verification` - verification acceptance.
- `evidence:20260510-loop-hardening-checks` - command evidence.

Files, Diffs, Or External References:

- Current git diff in the worktree - primary source for changed corpus content.
- `loom-core/skills/using-loom/SKILL.md` and `loom-core/skills/using-loom/references/*.md` - Core doctrine.
- `loom-core/skills/loom-tickets/**`, `loom-core/skills/loom-plans/**`, `loom-core/skills/loom-ralph/**`, `loom-core/skills/loom-audit/**` - affected Core surfaces.
- `loom-playbooks/skills/loom-frontend-ui-engineering/SKILL.md`, `loom-playbooks/skills/loom-source-driven-development/SKILL.md`, `loom-playbooks/skills/loom-incremental-implementation/SKILL.md`, `loom-playbooks/skills/loom-code-review-and-quality/SKILL.md`, `loom-playbooks/skills/loom-idea-refine/SKILL.md` - affected playbooks.
- `README.md`, `PROTOCOL.md`, `ARCHITECTURE.md`, `loom-core/README.md`, `loom-playbooks/README.md` - public docs that restate the protocol.

## Read Scope

- Read the records listed in `## Context Bundle`.
- Inspect the current git diff for the changed files.
- Inspect any changed file necessary to judge the claims.
- Use repository source reality, not this packet's summary, when they differ.

## Write Scope

Records Or Artifacts:

- None - this is a read-only review run. Return output through the launch transport.

Source Paths:

- None - do not edit files.

## Source Snapshot

- Branch: `main`.
- Worktree: `/Users/alexanderbutler/code_projects/personal/agent-loom`.
- Modified tracked files include Core skills/references/templates, selected Playbook skills, and public docs.
- New Loom records include this plan, research, evidence, tickets, and packet.
- Checks already observed in `evidence:20260510-loop-hardening-checks`: Core smoke, Playbooks smoke, Core pack check, Playbooks pack check, and `git diff --check` all passed.

## Task

Review the changes against these questions:

- Do the Core changes make outer-loop shaping the default for vague/broad product work until operator direction, quality bar, evidence posture, and ticket boundary are clear?
- Do the ticket and plan changes create a strong enough slicing test to prevent one ticket from bundling independent stack, data, UI, feature, review, and verification outcomes?
- Do the Ralph and audit changes make an on-disk `.loom/packets/ralph/` packet the worker handoff contract before a harness-native subagent or fresh-context audit is launched?
- Do the selected playbook and doc changes reinforce Core without creating a second protocol surface?
- Do the new Loom records truthfully represent the work, evidence, and remaining review state?

Non-goals:

- Do not review the Dota eval app implementation.
- Do not propose new runtime validators, dashboards, daemons, or helper scripts.
- Do not require wording that narrates the eval failure inside shipped skills.

## Evidence, Review, Or Verification Expectations

Return findings first, ordered by severity. Use `FIND-*` IDs for material issues. Include file/line references when practical, required follow-up, residual risks, and a bounded verdict: `clear`, `concerns`, `changes-needed`, or `inconclusive`.

If no material findings are found, state that explicitly and name residual risks or unverified behavior.

## Stop Conditions

- Return `blocked` if required records or diffs are unavailable.
- Return `escalate` if the review reveals a product-policy decision beyond this packet.
- Keep the review scoped to the protocol hardening diff and listed records.

## Output Contract

The worker must return output with:

- outcome: `continue`, `stop`, `blocked`, or `escalate`
- files changed: expected `None`
- records changed: expected `None`
- findings, observations, and verdict
- what was not verified or reviewed
- blockers, risks, or assumptions discovered
- recommended next move for the consuming surface

## Worker Output

Outcome: `stop`

Files changed: None.

Records changed: None.

Findings, observations, and verdict:

- No material findings found.
- Core now makes outer-loop shaping the default when product intent, quality bar,
  evidence posture, or ticket boundary is unclear.
- Ticket and plan guidance now include a practical single-closure-claim slicing
  test.
- Ralph and audit guidance now make `.loom/packets/ralph/` packets the worker
  handoff contract before launch.
- Playbooks and public docs reinforce Core rather than defining a second protocol
  surface.
- Loom records truthfully represent the work as implemented and awaiting final
  review/closure rather than already closed.
- Verdict: `clear`.

What was not verified or reviewed:

- Did not review the Dota eval app implementation.
- Did not run package smoke or pack checks; reviewed the recorded evidence and ran
  only `git diff --check`, which passed.
- Did not validate whether the changed wording changes future agent behavior in a
  live eval.

Blockers, risks, or assumptions discovered:

- No blockers.
- Residual risk: instruction-following effectiveness remains behavioral and may
  need a future live eval to prove.
- Residual risk: some playbook route summaries still use compact route strings,
  but nearby Core-dependency language sufficiently constrains them.

Recommended next move:

- Record this packet output into the consuming audit/review surface, then update
  the verification ticket and plan closure state if the parent agrees with the
  bounded `clear` verdict.
