Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling #214

Open
Open
Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling#214

Description

@xiaoxiao0406
xiaoxiao0406
opened on Jun 13, 2026

Summary

A completed RLCR session showed strong review-driven progress during implementation-heavy rounds, but weaker behavior around manual approval gates. The loop accumulated repeated hold rounds, and one later escape path treated lack of response as assumed approval, which proved fragile when user feedback later rejected an artifact.

Observed methodology patterns

  • Productive implementation rounds had concrete deliverables, focused tests, and reviewer findings that were specific enough to fix in the next round.
  • Repeated manual-gate hold rounds preserved process compliance but did not advance the underlying goal.
  • Review verdicts sometimes blurred the distinction between being compliant with a gate and making actual goal progress.
  • Stagnation detection eventually triggered, but only after several low-progress rounds had already accumulated.
  • Assumed approval restored momentum locally, but increased downstream rework risk.
  • Long repeated summaries made it harder to see what changed between hold rounds.

Suggested improvements

  1. Add dual verdicts to every review: process compliance and goal progress.
  2. Require each round contract to declare its type: implementation, review-fix, analysis, hold, or recovery.
  3. Add a passive-hold limit for manual gates; after the limit, require explicit escalation or stop.
  4. Replace assumed approval with explicit decision states: approved, rejected, needs more evidence, proceed with known risk, and blocked waiting for owner.
  5. Track blocker age and repeated-round count in the working state, with a required exit condition.
  6. Use compact reviews for no-change hold rounds instead of full implementation-style reviews.
  7. Require reviewer findings to include concrete verification methods.
  8. Label downstream work that depends on an unresolved gate as reversible, independent, or blocked.
  9. Use delta-first summaries for repeated blockers: what changed, what remains blocked, owner, next options.
  10. Capture process lessons for recurring methodology failures, not only technical issues.

Expected benefit

These changes should preserve the strengths of RLCR during implementation while making manual gates and stagnation easier to manage. The main goal is to prevent repeated low-progress rounds and avoid silently converting missing approval into approval.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

      Skip to content
      Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling #214
      Open
      Open
      Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling#214
      Description
      @xiaoxiao0406
      xiaoxiao0406
      opened on Jun 13, 2026
      Summary
      A completed RLCR session showed strong review-driven progress during implementation-heavy rounds, but weaker behavior around manual approval gates. The loop accumulated repeated hold rounds, and one later escape path treated lack of response as assumed approval, which proved fragile when user feedback later rejected an artifact.
      Observed methodology patterns
      • Productive implementation rounds had concrete deliverables, focused tests, and reviewer findings that were specific enough to fix in the next round.
      • Repeated manual-gate hold rounds preserved process compliance but did not advance the underlying goal.
      • Review verdicts sometimes blurred the distinction between being compliant with a gate and making actual goal progress.
      • Stagnation detection eventually triggered, but only after several low-progress rounds had already accumulated.
      • Assumed approval restored momentum locally, but increased downstream rework risk.
      • Long repeated summaries made it harder to see what changed between hold rounds.
      Suggested improvements
      1. Add dual verdicts to every review: process compliance and goal progress.
      2. Require each round contract to declare its type: implementation, review-fix, analysis, hold, or recovery.
      3. Add a passive-hold limit for manual gates; after the limit, require explicit escalation or stop.
      4. Replace assumed approval with explicit decision states: approved, rejected, needs more evidence, proceed with known risk, and blocked waiting for owner.
      5. Track blocker age and repeated-round count in the working state, with a required exit condition.
      6. Use compact reviews for no-change hold rounds instead of full implementation-style reviews.
      7. Require reviewer findings to include concrete verification methods.
      8. Label downstream work that depends on an unresolved gate as reversible, independent, or blocked.
      9. Use delta-first summaries for repeated blockers: what changed, what remains blocked, owner, next options.
      10. Capture process lessons for recurring methodology failures, not only technical issues.
      Expected benefit
      These changes should preserve the strengths of RLCR during implementation while making manual gates and stagnation easier to manage. The main goal is to prevent repeated low-progress rounds and avoid silently converting missing approval into approval.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        No labels
        No labels
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

          Skip to content
          Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling #214
          Open
          Open
          Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling#214
          Description
          @xiaoxiao0406
          xiaoxiao0406
          opened on Jun 13, 2026
          Summary
          A completed RLCR session showed strong review-driven progress during implementation-heavy rounds, but weaker behavior around manual approval gates. The loop accumulated repeated hold rounds, and one later escape path treated lack of response as assumed approval, which proved fragile when user feedback later rejected an artifact.
          Observed methodology patterns
          • Productive implementation rounds had concrete deliverables, focused tests, and reviewer findings that were specific enough to fix in the next round.
          • Repeated manual-gate hold rounds preserved process compliance but did not advance the underlying goal.
          • Review verdicts sometimes blurred the distinction between being compliant with a gate and making actual goal progress.
          • Stagnation detection eventually triggered, but only after several low-progress rounds had already accumulated.
          • Assumed approval restored momentum locally, but increased downstream rework risk.
          • Long repeated summaries made it harder to see what changed between hold rounds.
          Suggested improvements
          1. Add dual verdicts to every review: process compliance and goal progress.
          2. Require each round contract to declare its type: implementation, review-fix, analysis, hold, or recovery.
          3. Add a passive-hold limit for manual gates; after the limit, require explicit escalation or stop.
          4. Replace assumed approval with explicit decision states: approved, rejected, needs more evidence, proceed with known risk, and blocked waiting for owner.
          5. Track blocker age and repeated-round count in the working state, with a required exit condition.
          6. Use compact reviews for no-change hold rounds instead of full implementation-style reviews.
          7. Require reviewer findings to include concrete verification methods.
          8. Label downstream work that depends on an unresolved gate as reversible, independent, or blocked.
          9. Use delta-first summaries for repeated blockers: what changed, what remains blocked, owner, next options.
          10. Capture process lessons for recurring methodology failures, not only technical issues.
          Expected benefit
          These changes should preserve the strengths of RLCR during implementation while making manual gates and stagnation easier to manage. The main goal is to prevent repeated low-progress rounds and avoid silently converting missing approval into approval.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            No labels
            No labels
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

              Skip to content
              Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling #214
              Open
              Open
              Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling#214
              Description
              @xiaoxiao0406
              xiaoxiao0406
              opened on Jun 13, 2026
              Summary
              A completed RLCR session showed strong review-driven progress during implementation-heavy rounds, but weaker behavior around manual approval gates. The loop accumulated repeated hold rounds, and one later escape path treated lack of response as assumed approval, which proved fragile when user feedback later rejected an artifact.
              Observed methodology patterns
              • Productive implementation rounds had concrete deliverables, focused tests, and reviewer findings that were specific enough to fix in the next round.
              • Repeated manual-gate hold rounds preserved process compliance but did not advance the underlying goal.
              • Review verdicts sometimes blurred the distinction between being compliant with a gate and making actual goal progress.
              • Stagnation detection eventually triggered, but only after several low-progress rounds had already accumulated.
              • Assumed approval restored momentum locally, but increased downstream rework risk.
              • Long repeated summaries made it harder to see what changed between hold rounds.
              Suggested improvements
              1. Add dual verdicts to every review: process compliance and goal progress.
              2. Require each round contract to declare its type: implementation, review-fix, analysis, hold, or recovery.
              3. Add a passive-hold limit for manual gates; after the limit, require explicit escalation or stop.
              4. Replace assumed approval with explicit decision states: approved, rejected, needs more evidence, proceed with known risk, and blocked waiting for owner.
              5. Track blocker age and repeated-round count in the working state, with a required exit condition.
              6. Use compact reviews for no-change hold rounds instead of full implementation-style reviews.
              7. Require reviewer findings to include concrete verification methods.
              8. Label downstream work that depends on an unresolved gate as reversible, independent, or blocked.
              9. Use delta-first summaries for repeated blockers: what changed, what remains blocked, owner, next options.
              10. Capture process lessons for recurring methodology failures, not only technical issues.
              Expected benefit
              These changes should preserve the strengths of RLCR during implementation while making manual gates and stagnation easier to manage. The main goal is to prevent repeated low-progress rounds and avoid silently converting missing approval into approval.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                No labels
                No labels
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

                  Skip to content
                  Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling #214
                  Open
                  Open
                  Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling#214
                  Description
                  @xiaoxiao0406
                  xiaoxiao0406
                  opened on Jun 13, 2026
                  Summary
                  A completed RLCR session showed strong review-driven progress during implementation-heavy rounds, but weaker behavior around manual approval gates. The loop accumulated repeated hold rounds, and one later escape path treated lack of response as assumed approval, which proved fragile when user feedback later rejected an artifact.
                  Observed methodology patterns
                  • Productive implementation rounds had concrete deliverables, focused tests, and reviewer findings that were specific enough to fix in the next round.
                  • Repeated manual-gate hold rounds preserved process compliance but did not advance the underlying goal.
                  • Review verdicts sometimes blurred the distinction between being compliant with a gate and making actual goal progress.
                  • Stagnation detection eventually triggered, but only after several low-progress rounds had already accumulated.
                  • Assumed approval restored momentum locally, but increased downstream rework risk.
                  • Long repeated summaries made it harder to see what changed between hold rounds.
                  Suggested improvements
                  1. Add dual verdicts to every review: process compliance and goal progress.
                  2. Require each round contract to declare its type: implementation, review-fix, analysis, hold, or recovery.
                  3. Add a passive-hold limit for manual gates; after the limit, require explicit escalation or stop.
                  4. Replace assumed approval with explicit decision states: approved, rejected, needs more evidence, proceed with known risk, and blocked waiting for owner.
                  5. Track blocker age and repeated-round count in the working state, with a required exit condition.
                  6. Use compact reviews for no-change hold rounds instead of full implementation-style reviews.
                  7. Require reviewer findings to include concrete verification methods.
                  8. Label downstream work that depends on an unresolved gate as reversible, independent, or blocked.
                  9. Use delta-first summaries for repeated blockers: what changed, what remains blocked, owner, next options.
                  10. Capture process lessons for recurring methodology failures, not only technical issues.
                  Expected benefit
                  These changes should preserve the strengths of RLCR during implementation while making manual gates and stagnation easier to manage. The main goal is to prevent repeated low-progress rounds and avoid silently converting missing approval into approval.
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    No labels
                    No labels
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                      Skip to content
                      Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling #214
                      Open
                      Open
                      Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling#214
                      Description
                      @xiaoxiao0406
                      xiaoxiao0406
                      opened on Jun 13, 2026
                      Summary
                      A completed RLCR session showed strong review-driven progress during implementation-heavy rounds, but weaker behavior around manual approval gates. The loop accumulated repeated hold rounds, and one later escape path treated lack of response as assumed approval, which proved fragile when user feedback later rejected an artifact.
                      Observed methodology patterns
                      • Productive implementation rounds had concrete deliverables, focused tests, and reviewer findings that were specific enough to fix in the next round.
                      • Repeated manual-gate hold rounds preserved process compliance but did not advance the underlying goal.
                      • Review verdicts sometimes blurred the distinction between being compliant with a gate and making actual goal progress.
                      • Stagnation detection eventually triggered, but only after several low-progress rounds had already accumulated.
                      • Assumed approval restored momentum locally, but increased downstream rework risk.
                      • Long repeated summaries made it harder to see what changed between hold rounds.
                      Suggested improvements
                      1. Add dual verdicts to every review: process compliance and goal progress.
                      2. Require each round contract to declare its type: implementation, review-fix, analysis, hold, or recovery.
                      3. Add a passive-hold limit for manual gates; after the limit, require explicit escalation or stop.
                      4. Replace assumed approval with explicit decision states: approved, rejected, needs more evidence, proceed with known risk, and blocked waiting for owner.
                      5. Track blocker age and repeated-round count in the working state, with a required exit condition.
                      6. Use compact reviews for no-change hold rounds instead of full implementation-style reviews.
                      7. Require reviewer findings to include concrete verification methods.
                      8. Label downstream work that depends on an unresolved gate as reversible, independent, or blocked.
                      9. Use delta-first summaries for repeated blockers: what changed, what remains blocked, owner, next options.
                      10. Capture process lessons for recurring methodology failures, not only technical issues.
                      Expected benefit
                      These changes should preserve the strengths of RLCR during implementation while making manual gates and stagnation easier to manage. The main goal is to prevent repeated low-progress rounds and avoid silently converting missing approval into approval.
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        No labels
                        No labels
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                          Skip to content
                          Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling #214
                          Open
                          Open
                          Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling#214
                          Description
                          @xiaoxiao0406
                          xiaoxiao0406
                          opened on Jun 13, 2026
                          Summary
                          A completed RLCR session showed strong review-driven progress during implementation-heavy rounds, but weaker behavior around manual approval gates. The loop accumulated repeated hold rounds, and one later escape path treated lack of response as assumed approval, which proved fragile when user feedback later rejected an artifact.
                          Observed methodology patterns
                          • Productive implementation rounds had concrete deliverables, focused tests, and reviewer findings that were specific enough to fix in the next round.
                          • Repeated manual-gate hold rounds preserved process compliance but did not advance the underlying goal.
                          • Review verdicts sometimes blurred the distinction between being compliant with a gate and making actual goal progress.
                          • Stagnation detection eventually triggered, but only after several low-progress rounds had already accumulated.
                          • Assumed approval restored momentum locally, but increased downstream rework risk.
                          • Long repeated summaries made it harder to see what changed between hold rounds.
                          Suggested improvements
                          1. Add dual verdicts to every review: process compliance and goal progress.
                          2. Require each round contract to declare its type: implementation, review-fix, analysis, hold, or recovery.
                          3. Add a passive-hold limit for manual gates; after the limit, require explicit escalation or stop.
                          4. Replace assumed approval with explicit decision states: approved, rejected, needs more evidence, proceed with known risk, and blocked waiting for owner.
                          5. Track blocker age and repeated-round count in the working state, with a required exit condition.
                          6. Use compact reviews for no-change hold rounds instead of full implementation-style reviews.
                          7. Require reviewer findings to include concrete verification methods.
                          8. Label downstream work that depends on an unresolved gate as reversible, independent, or blocked.
                          9. Use delta-first summaries for repeated blockers: what changed, what remains blocked, owner, next options.
                          10. Capture process lessons for recurring methodology failures, not only technical issues.
                          Expected benefit
                          These changes should preserve the strengths of RLCR during implementation while making manual gates and stagnation easier to manage. The main goal is to prevent repeated low-progress rounds and avoid silently converting missing approval into approval.
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            No labels
                            No labels
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

                              Skip to content
                              Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling #214
                              Open
                              Open
                              Improve RLCR manual-gate and stagnation handling#214
                              Description
                              @xiaoxiao0406
                              xiaoxiao0406
                              opened on Jun 13, 2026
                              Summary
                              A completed RLCR session showed strong review-driven progress during implementation-heavy rounds, but weaker behavior around manual approval gates. The loop accumulated repeated hold rounds, and one later escape path treated lack of response as assumed approval, which proved fragile when user feedback later rejected an artifact.
                              Observed methodology patterns
                              • Productive implementation rounds had concrete deliverables, focused tests, and reviewer findings that were specific enough to fix in the next round.
                              • Repeated manual-gate hold rounds preserved process compliance but did not advance the underlying goal.
                              • Review verdicts sometimes blurred the distinction between being compliant with a gate and making actual goal progress.
                              • Stagnation detection eventually triggered, but only after several low-progress rounds had already accumulated.
                              • Assumed approval restored momentum locally, but increased downstream rework risk.
                              • Long repeated summaries made it harder to see what changed between hold rounds.
                              Suggested improvements
                              1. Add dual verdicts to every review: process compliance and goal progress.
                              2. Require each round contract to declare its type: implementation, review-fix, analysis, hold, or recovery.
                              3. Add a passive-hold limit for manual gates; after the limit, require explicit escalation or stop.
                              4. Replace assumed approval with explicit decision states: approved, rejected, needs more evidence, proceed with known risk, and blocked waiting for owner.
                              5. Track blocker age and repeated-round count in the working state, with a required exit condition.
                              6. Use compact reviews for no-change hold rounds instead of full implementation-style reviews.
                              7. Require reviewer findings to include concrete verification methods.
                              8. Label downstream work that depends on an unresolved gate as reversible, independent, or blocked.
                              9. Use delta-first summaries for repeated blockers: what changed, what remains blocked, owner, next options.
                              10. Capture process lessons for recurring methodology failures, not only technical issues.
                              Expected benefit
                              These changes should preserve the strengths of RLCR during implementation while making manual gates and stagnation easier to manage. The main goal is to prevent repeated low-progress rounds and avoid silently converting missing approval into approval.
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                No labels
                                No labels
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions