agentleFS
markoblogomarkoblogo/abvx-agent-skills/skills/loop-readiness-review/SKILL.md

loop-readiness-review

Skill16 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Review whether a recurring or semi-autonomous agent loop is ready to run. Use before scheduling Codex, Claude Code, Grok, Opencode, CI, issue triage, PR babysitting, dependency sweeping, changelog drafting, or other repeated agent workflows.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈10

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill before turning repeated agent work into a scheduled or recurring loop.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    run log: what happened, what changed, what failed, and why it stopped.

    line 41
  3. Distinctive:

    Check the readiness dimensions above.

    line 49
  4. Distinctive:

    add state file or run log.

    line 53
  5. Distinctive:

    stop or de-schedule the loop.

    line 58
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not recommend auto-fix, auto-merge, production deploy, release, or destructive actions without an explicit human gate.

    line 76
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not promote a loop beyond report-only without durable state and a run log.

    line 77
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not promote beyond proposal-first without verifier evidence and rollback or discard path.

    line 78
  9. Distinctive:

    Do not let the loop judge its own safety claims.

    line 79
  10. Distinctive:

    Do not add scheduling when a one-shot task or manual checklist is enough.

    line 80

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Loop Readiness Review

Use this skill before turning repeated agent work into a scheduled or recurring loop.

Use When

  • a workflow may run on a cadence: cron, automation, /loop, GitHub Actions, or external scheduler;
  • a runner will open worktrees, inspect CI, triage issues, update changelogs, watch PRs, or sweep dependencies;
  • a SET bundle is being handed to a loop-capable orchestrator;
  • a report-only loop is being promoted toward auto-fix or PR creation;
  • you need to decide whether the loop is L0, L1, L2, or L3 ready.

Readiness Levels

  • L0: not loop-ready; missing state, verifier, or human gate.
  • L1: report-only; can read, summarize, and propose actions.
  • L2: proposal-first; can create retained output, worktree changes, or draft PRs behind review gates.
  • L3: governed loop; has state, isolation, verifier, budget, run log, rollback/escalation, and human-controlled settlement.

Readiness Checks

Review:

  • cadence: trigger, frequency, quiet hours, stop rule;
  • state: STATE.md, run ledger, or other durable memory outside the model;
  • scope: allowed repos, paths, issues, branches, and denied targets;
  • isolation: worktree, branch, sandbox, or retained-output directory;
  • skills: triage, implementer, verifier, review lenses, and escalation roles;
  • connectors: MCP, GitHub, CI, email, calendar, or other external tools with least privilege;
  • verifier: deterministic checks, bounded eval, CI, human review, or maker/checker split;
  • budget: token, time, run count, retry, and spend caps;
  • run log: what happened, what changed, what failed, and why it stopped;
  • human gate: approval boundary for writes, merges, releases, destructive actions, or external side effects;
  • rollback: how to discard, revert, close, or pause the loop.

Workflow

  1. Identify the loop pattern and intended cadence.
  2. Classify the current readiness level.
  3. Check the readiness dimensions above.
  4. List blockers that prevent promotion to the next level.
  5. Recommend the smallest next step:
    • keep report-only;
    • add state file or run log;
    • add verifier;
    • add worktree isolation;
    • add budget caps;
    • add human gate;
    • stop or de-schedule the loop.

Output Shape

Use:

  • loop name or pattern;
  • current level: L0, L1, L2, or L3;
  • intended next level;
  • checks passed;
  • blockers;
  • budget and stop rules;
  • human gate;
  • smallest next step;
  • decision: not-ready, report-only, proposal-first, or governed.

Guardrails

  • Do not recommend auto-fix, auto-merge, production deploy, release, or destructive actions without an explicit human gate.
  • Do not promote a loop beyond report-only without durable state and a run log.
  • Do not promote beyond proposal-first without verifier evidence and rollback or discard path.
  • Do not let the loop judge its own safety claims.
  • Do not add scheduling when a one-shot task or manual checklist is enough.

Pair With

  • context-degradation-review before long loop handoffs or memory-heavy runs.
  • filesystem-context-discipline for STATE.md, run logs, retained outputs, and proposal folders.
  • bounded-evaluation for verifier and maker/checker gates.
  • reversible-agent-task for proposal-first worktree or retained-output settlement.
  • agent-tool-contract-review for MCP, CLI, and GitHub Action inputs used by the loop.
  • loop-hardening-contract for runtime-path sprint packets, measured harness stripping, and broken-window revalidation without automatic revert.

Provenance

Adapted from loop readiness and loop engineering patterns in cobusgreyling/loop-engineering, narrowed into an ABVX review skill rather than a loop runtime.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.