agentleFS
owen-dev-6174owen-dev-6174/bodhisattva-skills/skills/loop-breaker/SKILL.md

loop-breaker

Skill0 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when stuck in a loop, going in circles, repeating the same failing approach, seeing the same error after multiple retries, or making no progress despite multiple attempts. Detects infinite retry cycles and forces strategy pivots before burning tokens.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. SECRET4422/loopbreaker★ 1same name
    2. aradmanamnaoon/vibe-coding-skills★ 0same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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:

    After every failed attempt, check: have I tried this before?

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    If the same approach has failed twice (same file, same strategy, same class of error), you are in a loop.

    line 54
  3. Distinctive:

    When the 2-strike rule triggers:

    line 58
  4. Distinctive:

    List: every approach tried and its failure reason

    line 60
  5. Distinctive:

    If you have pivoted to 3 genuinely different strategies and none produced progress, stop and escalate to the user.

    line 67

≈ “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 Breaker: Stop Repeating, Start Solving

Agents waste enormous effort looping through the same failing approach -- retrying identical strategies, seeing the same error, going in circles 10, 20, even 58 times. This skill breaks the cycle.

The Iron Law

The third identical attempt is always wrong. If you've tried something twice and it failed, doing it a third time is not persistence -- it is insanity.

The Process

After every failed attempt, check: have I tried this before?

digraph loop_breaker {
    rankdir=TB
    node [shape=box style=rounded]

    attempt [label="Attempt fails"]
    check [label="Have I tried this\napproach before?" shape=diamond]
    first [label="Log approach +\nerror in tried list.\nRetry ONCE with\ntargeted adjustment."]
    second [label="STOP. 2 failures\nwith same approach.\nTrigger pivot protocol."]
    list [label="1. List all tried approaches\n2. State WHY each failed\n3. Generate 3 fundamentally\n   different strategies\n4. Pick most promising\n   untried approach"]
    pivots [label="Have I pivoted\n3 times with\nno progress?" shape=diamond]
    escalate [label="STOP. Escalate\nto the user.\nPresent findings."]
    execute [label="Execute new\napproach"]

    attempt -> check
    check -> first [label="No / once"]
    check -> second [label="Yes, twice+"]
    second -> list
    first -> attempt [label="fails again" style=dashed]
    list -> pivots
    pivots -> escalate [label="Yes"]
    pivots -> execute [label="No"]
    execute -> attempt [label="fails" style=dashed]
}

Step 1: Track what you have tried

Maintain a mental ledger after each failure:

  • Approach: What you did (specific file, function, strategy)
  • Result: The exact error or failure mode
  • Root cause: WHY it failed, not just THAT it failed

Step 2: Detect the loop (2-strike rule)

If the same approach has failed twice (same file, same strategy, same class of error), you are in a loop. Stop immediately. Do not attempt a third time.

Step 3: Force a pivot

When the 2-strike rule triggers:

  1. List every approach tried and its failure reason
  2. Diagnose the common thread -- why does this category of fix keep failing?
  3. Generate 3 fundamentally different strategies -- not variations, genuinely different angles (different files, different tools, different assumptions)
  4. Select the most promising untried strategy and execute it

Step 4: Escalate after 3 failed pivots

If you have pivoted to 3 genuinely different strategies and none produced progress, stop and escalate to the user. Present:

  • What was tried (all approaches)
  • Why each failed
  • What you suspect the root cause is
  • What information or access you need to proceed

Red Flags: Rationalizations That Signal a Loop

You catch yourself thinkingWhat it actually means
"Let me try one more time"You already tried. Pivot now.
"Maybe I just need to adjust slightly"A slight adjustment is the same approach.
"It should work this time"Evidence says otherwise. New strategy needed.
"Let me re-read the error"You have read it. The error is not wrong -- your approach is.
"This is the only way to do it"There is always another way. You are stuck, not correct.
"I just need to change one small thing"If the strategy is wrong, small changes will not fix it.

What Counts as "the Same Approach"

Two attempts are the same approach if they share any of these:

  • Editing the same lines in the same file with minor variations
  • Applying the same category of fix (e.g., adding imports, adjusting types)
  • Getting the same error message or same class of error
  • Operating on the same assumption about root cause

A fundamentally different approach means changing your assumption about what is wrong, not just how you fix it.

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.