Add Human-in-the-Loop Review for Newly Generated Tools

[matiasmolinas]

Title: Add Human-in-the-Loop Review for Newly Generated Tools

Description
We want developers (or designated “managers”) to approve or reject any new code snippet (“tool”) the agent generates before it becomes permanently available. If the code is rejected, the agent should record the feedback and attempt a regeneration—incorporating any new constraints provided by the reviewer.

Key Requirements

1. Developer Approval/Reject Process

   • Offer a CLI command or a minimal UI where a user can view the latest generated tool (with its description, code, and metadata) and choose “approve” or “reject.”
   • If approved, the tool is added to the library (with relevant timestamps, version counters, etc.).
   • If rejected, the tool’s feedback is logged, and the agent automatically re-prompts the LLM, embedding the user’s feedback.

2. Logging & Feedback

   • Each approval/rejection action should include a timestamp and be stored in a log or other persistent record (e.g., a local database or JSON file).
   • If rejected, the feedback (e.g., “Syntax error in line 24,” “Uses disallowed library,” etc.) should be appended to the next LLM prompt, so the agent attempts a better solution.

3. Integration with Tool Library

   • Newly generated tools remain in a “pending” state until a user explicitly approves them.
   • Approved tools move to “active/functional” status in the library; rejected ones remain logged (or archived) but never get used as official tools unless regenerated successfully.

Acceptance Criteria

• CLI or Minimal UI to display newly generated tools, plus the ability to accept/reject each.
• If rejected, the agent logs the feedback and re-prompts the LLM with the new constraints, trying to fix the identified issues.
• Audit Trail: Keep track of who approved or rejected, along with timestamps and feedback messages.

Additional Context

• This step closes the loop between purely autonomous code generation and robust, production-level oversight—preventing incorrect or potentially harmful code from making it into the main library.
• Future enhancements may include more advanced UIs or multi-step approval processes, but for now, a minimal approach suffices to demonstrate manual review of new tools.

If you have questions or suggestions, let me know! Otherwise, I’ll move forward with a PR for this human-in-the-loop review process.