Agent loop and tool routing
Does the LLM choose tools based on evidence instead of following a fixed script?
Give the first AI/ML systems reviewer one focused public page for inspecting the agent design and submitting countable review evidence without exposing private data.
Could you review my Data Quality Agent as an AI Engineer project? The short path now includes the LLM value comparison that shows adaptive strategy selection beating a fixed checklist across 14 scenarios. Public review form: https://sunnnn2005.github.io/data-quality-agent/first-ai-reviewer-ask.html
Slot: review_slot_07 · Status: not_sent
Does the LLM choose tools based on evidence instead of following a fixed script?
Are read-only data access, query limits, and redaction rules clear enough?
Are facts, inferences, limitations, and resume-safe claims separated?
Does the 14-scenario comparison make the agentic strategy selection more credible than a fixed workflow?
Would the telemetry be enough to verify a real OpenAI-compatible run later?
This page can support the first AI Engineer review only after a real non-owner reviewer submits a public, redacted GitHub issue with permission to count. A sent message or page view does not count.
I give permission for this public issue to be counted as project review evidence.