Cargo.lock

@@ -1981,6 +1981,7 @@ dependencies = [
  "anyhow",
  "reqwest 0.13.4",
  "rig",
+ "schemars 1.2.2",
  "scraper",
  "serde",
  "tokio",

Cargo.toml

@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ edition = "2024"
 anyhow = "1.0.104"
 reqwest = { version = "0.13.4", features = ["query"] }
 rig = { version = "0.41.0", features = ["test-utils"] }
+schemars = "1"
 scraper = "0.25"
 serde = "1.0.229"
 tokio = { version = "1.53.1", features = ["full"] }

src/deep_research/mod.rs

@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
 pub mod starter;
+mod review;
 mod tools;

src/deep_research/review.rs

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+use rig::client::AgentClientExt;
+use rig::providers::ollama;
+use schemars::JsonSchema;
+use serde::{Deserialize, Serialize};
+
+/// Judging whether a conclusion actually follows from its cited sources is a
+/// bounded, single-shot classification task, not multi-step reasoning — so
+/// it doesn't need the researcher's larger model, just a fresh context free
+/// of the researcher's own (possibly overconfident) framing.
+const REVIEWER_MODEL: &str = "gemma4-e4b:latest";
+
+/// A reviewer's structured judgment on a research pass: whether the
+/// conclusion actually follows from the cited sources, split into what to
+/// keep and what still needs digging so a follow-up research pass can build
+/// on this one instead of starting from scratch.
+#[derive(Deserialize, Serialize, JsonSchema)]
+pub(crate) struct Review {
+    /// True only if every conclusion in the findings is directly supported by one of its cited sources and the findings adequately cover the topic
+    pub(crate) approved: bool,
+    /// The specific facts and sources from the findings that are well-supported and worth keeping in a follow-up pass
+    pub(crate) solid_findings: String,
+    /// Concrete gaps: conclusions not backed by a source, sources that don't actually support the conclusion drawn from them, or parts of the topic left uncovered
+    pub(crate) gaps: String,
+}
+
+/// Uses rig's typed extractor — a forced tool call into a `submit(Review)`
+/// schema — rather than parsing free-text output, so the verdict and its
+/// two feedback fields always come back structured instead of relying on
+/// scanning prose for a trailing yes/no.
+#[tracing::instrument(skip(client, findings), fields(gen_ai.agent.name = "reviewer"))]
+pub(crate) async fn review_findings(
+    client: &ollama::Client,
+    topic: &str,
+    findings: &str,
+) -> anyhow::Result<Review> {
+    let reviewer = client
+        .extractor::<Review>(REVIEWER_MODEL)
+        .preamble(
+            "You are a skeptical fact-checker reviewing another researcher's notes before they \
+             get turned into a report. Approve only if every conclusion in the findings is \
+             directly backed by one of its cited sources and the findings adequately cover the \
+             topic. Reject if a conclusion overreaches what its source actually says, if sources \
+             contradict each other without resolution, or if the topic is only partially covered. \
+             Always separate the solid, well-supported findings from the gaps so a follow-up \
+             research pass knows what to keep and what to dig into further.",
+        )
+        .retries(2)
+        .build();
+
+    let review = reviewer
+        .extract(format!("Topic: {topic}\n\nResearch findings to review:\n{findings}"))
+        .await?;
+
+    tracing::info!(approved = review.approved, gaps = %review.gaps, "review complete");
+
+    Ok(review)
+}

src/deep_research/starter.rs

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 use rig::client::{AgentClientExt, Nothing};
 use rig::completion::Prompt;
 use rig::providers::ollama;
+use crate::deep_research::review::{self, Review};
 use crate::deep_research::tools::{FetchPage, SearchWeb};
 
 /// The tool-calling research loop needs to reliably decide what to search
@@ -11,6 +12,10 @@ use crate::deep_research::tools::{FetchPage, SearchWeb};
 const RESEARCHER_MODEL: &str = "gemma4:26b";
 const WRITER_MODEL: &str = "gemma4-e4b:latest";
 const MAX_RESEARCH_TURNS: usize = 12;
+/// Research/review rounds before giving up and writing the report from
+/// whatever the last pass produced, rather than looping forever on a topic
+/// the reviewer can never be satisfied with.
+const MAX_RESEARCH_ROUNDS: usize = 3;
 
 const DEFAULT_TOPIC: &str =
     "What are the latest advances in running large language models locally, on consumer hardware?";
@@ -41,20 +46,44 @@ pub(crate) async fn start() -> anyhow::Result<()> {
     Ok(())
 }
 
+/// The least-agentic shape that fits: a plain Rust loop putting *this code*,
+/// not a model, in charge of when to stop — re-running research with the
+/// reviewer's feedback folded in until it approves or the round budget runs
+/// out, then writing the report from whatever the last pass produced.
 async fn research(topic: &str) -> anyhow::Result<String> {
     let client = ollama::Client::new(Nothing)?;
 
-    let findings = gather_findings(&client, topic).await?;
+    let mut findings = String::new();
-    let report = write_report(&client, topic, &findings).await?;
+    let mut feedback: Option<Review> = None;
 
-    Ok(report)
+    for round in 1..=MAX_RESEARCH_ROUNDS {
+        findings = gather_findings(&client, topic, feedback.as_ref(), round).await?;
+
+        let review = review::review_findings(&client, topic, &findings).await?;
+        let approved = review.approved;
+
+        tracing::info!(round, approved, "review verdict");
+
+        if approved || round == MAX_RESEARCH_ROUNDS {
+            break;
+        }
+
+        feedback = Some(review);
+    }
+
+    write_report(&client, topic, &findings).await
 }
 
 /// Wraps the tool-calling research loop in its own span so it's visible as a
-/// single unit in traces, distinct from the writing phase and nesting rig's
+/// single unit in traces, distinct from the writing and review phases and
-/// own per-turn `chat`/`execute_tool` spans underneath it.
+/// nesting rig's own per-turn `chat`/`execute_tool` spans underneath it.
-#[tracing::instrument(skip(client), fields(gen_ai.agent.name = "researcher"))]
+#[tracing::instrument(skip(client, feedback), fields(gen_ai.agent.name = "researcher"))]
-async fn gather_findings(client: &ollama::Client, topic: &str) -> anyhow::Result<String> {
+async fn gather_findings(
+    client: &ollama::Client,
+    topic: &str,
+    feedback: Option<&Review>,
+    round: usize,
+) -> anyhow::Result<String> {
     let researcher = client
         .agent(RESEARCHER_MODEL)
         .name("researcher")
@@ -71,14 +100,30 @@ async fn gather_findings(client: &ollama::Client, topic: &str) -> anyhow::Result
         .tool(FetchPage)
         .build();
 
+    let task = match feedback {
+        None => topic.to_string(),
+        Some(review) => format!(
+            "Topic: {topic}\n\n\
+             You already ran a research pass on this topic. A reviewer checked it against its \
+             cited sources and found it insufficient. Do more research to address the reviewer's \
+             feedback, then produce an updated findings dump: carry forward what's solid, and \
+             add, correct, or better-source whatever the gaps call for.\n\n\
+             Solid findings from the last pass — keep and build on these:\n{}\n\n\
+             Gaps the reviewer found — conclusions not actually backed by their source, sources \
+             that don't line up with the conclusion drawn from them, or parts of the topic still \
+             uncovered:\n{}",
+            review.solid_findings, review.gaps
+        ),
+    };
+
     let findings = researcher
-        .runner(topic)
+        .runner(task)
         .max_turns(MAX_RESEARCH_TURNS)
         .run()
         .await?
         .output;
 
-    tracing::info!(findings = %findings, "research phase complete");
+    tracing::info!(round, findings = %findings, "research phase complete");
 
     Ok(findings)
 }