name: Code Review Cycle
id: code-review-cycle
source: builtin
description: >
  Developer implements a feature, code reviewer checks for bugs/style/performance,
  auditor evaluates the overall output with QPC scoring. Sequential pipeline
  ensuring separation of concerns between implementation, review, and evaluation.
topology: sequential
communication: chain
when_to_use:
  - "Feature implementation with structured code review"
  - "Code writing followed by quality review and evaluation"
  - "Quality improves through review before final evaluation"
  - "Need both code quality review and process evaluation"
  - "Single feature with clear review checkpoints"
when_not_to_use:
  - "Tasks requiring multiple parallel specialists"
  - "Broad exploration where coverage matters more than depth"
  - "First draft quality is sufficient"
pros:
  - "Separation of concerns — reviewer finds bugs, auditor evaluates process"
  - "Clear checkpoints between implementation, review, and evaluation"
  - "ELO signal for both code reviewer and developer"
cons:
  - "Slower — fully sequential execution"
  - "Three agents for what might be a simple feature"
  - "Late-stage agents can't inform early-stage decisions"
estimated_token_cost: low
estimated_agents: "3"
roles_suggested:
  stage_1: developer
  stage_2: code_reviewer
  stage_3: auditor
elo_lead_selection: false
