Writes Tower agent self-review to both:
- `.local/reports/tower-agent-review.md` (gitignored — session state)
- `reports/tower-agent-review.md` (tracked — persistent artifact)
## Data collected before writing
- `git log --author="replit@tower.local" --oneline`: 6 commits
- `git log --author="replit@tower.local" --stat`: +6,762 ins / −1,389 del
across 80 unique files
- Fix commits: 2 of 6 (83a2ec1 macOS compat, ea4cddc completedAt null)
- Full --stat inspected for each commit individually to verify file scope
- Reviewed planning-agent report scores (4/5/4/5/4 = 4.4 = B) as baseline
## Report contents (184 lines)
- Part 1: Contributor summary — 6-row commit inventory table with PR refs,
file counts, net lines; 6 work categories spanning backend, frontend,
infra, OpenAPI, testing, docs; explicit 80 unique-files stat
- Part 2: Self-assessment — 4/5/4/5/4 across rubric dimensions, composite
4.4 = Grade B. Key evidence: testkit audit editorial judgment (T3b removal,
T17-T22 addition), WS integration commit bundling concern, conditional
completedAt oversight, OpenAPI spec kept in sync same session
- Part 3: Orchestrator scorecard — 5/5/4/5/4, composite 4.6 = Grade A.
Highest in project: Tower tasks had most precisely specified acceptance
criteria and best agent-selection fit. Review cadence deducted for
completedAt edge case not caught in task spec
- Part 4: Top 3 improvements — (1) split large integration commits into
independent logical units, (2) infrastructure changes in dedicated
preparatory commit before feature work, (3) enumerate all state-machine
states before submitting any state-conditional API field
## Notes
- Orchestrator composite 4.6 = A is higher than other self-reviews (B range)
because Tower tasks were genuinely better specified and sequenced — this is
an honest assessment, not grade inflation
- Mirrored to reports/ for git persistence (pattern established in Tasks #37, #38)
cbb28211a0