Should an AI reviewer check work before a human sees it?

The whole point of an agent system, for me, is that I don't see garbage. Bad design, bad language, bad spacing, bad verbiage, banned words. A reviewer agent catches that before it ever gets to me.

"I don't ever want to see something without the reviewer looking at it from this system. That's the whole point."

What should the reviewer check?

• Design: layout, spacing, consistent card sizes, real brand assets
• Language: tone, readability, and a banned-words list
• Whether it matches an approved standard, if one exists. Improvising around an approved template earns no credit.

How many rounds should it get?

Two or three, then stop.

"We don't want the forever back and forth."

If the work still doesn't meet the bar after that, it comes to me with the reason it's stuck. That's the only time I should see something rough: when it's genuinely stuck against the quality bar, not because nobody checked.

What score is good enough to skip the human?

For fully automated newsletter issues, I set the bar at 9 out of 10 from the reviewer. Ten is ideal, 8 is questionable, 7 is unacceptable. Early test issues scored 5, 6 and 6, so the work is fixing gaps (local place checks, news sourcing, fact review) until issues clear it, rather than lowering the bar.

Reviewer score	What it means
10	Ideal
9	The goal: sendable without a person
8	Questionable
7 or below	Unacceptable

Does the creator still check its own work?

Yes. The agent that made it does a lightweight self-check first. Why would you not read a document you created? Then independent review comes in based on risk. A cheap version of self-review I've used since my early site builds:

Is this really the best you can do?
Please give yourself a review and tell me what you missed.

Where does the human fit?

At the end, and only when needed. I shouldn't be the primary tester. For newsletters that haven't cleared the 9-out-of-10 bar, a person still reads before send: should you send an AI newsletter without reading it. For code, the reviewer wants proof, not claims: how to know an AI fix works.