How do you get a reviewer agent to actually catch flaws and push a project to done - without you babysitting taste?

Looking for the setups other people use to make reviewer/critic agents genuinely useful, instead of rubber-stamping the main agent's work. The failure mode I keep hitting: the coding agent produces something plausible, the reviewer agent says "looks good," I catch at review that it deviated from the spec or the taste is off (naming, structure, over-engineering), and I have to step in and correct it. At that point the loop isn't autonomous anymore - I'm effectively the reviewer. For people who have gotten this to actually work: 1. How do you prompt/structure the reviewer so it catches real flaws (spec deviation, correctness, dead ends) rather than approving whatever the main agent did? 2. Do you give it independent access to run tests/builds/spec-checks, or is it pure code-reading? 3. How do you stop the main agent from drifting on taste/details while still letting it run unattended? (lint rules, generated tests, spec files, acceptance criteria?) 4. What's the most useful separation - one reviewer, a reviewer plus a critic proposing alternative solutions, or multiple specialized checkers? 5. When do you decide a task should hand back to you vs. let the agent chain keep grinding? I want the loop to terminate with something actually shippable - and ideally where the reviewer itself proposes the fix when something's wrong, not just flags it. Curious what configs, prompt patterns, and tooling people are running for this.