agentleFS
qwwiwiqwwiwi/agentos-skills-public/skills/fast-loop-coding/SKILL.md

fast-loop-coding

Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Lightweight 4-phase pipeline for small, well-scoped coding tasks (50-300 LOC, 1-3 files, single subsystem, 15-30 min). Plan (Codex) -> Implement (Opus) -> Dual Review (Codex+Opus) -> Ship. NO parallel research, NO audit phase, max 1 fix iteration. Plan single-model (Codex GPT-5.5) to offload Opus subscription; Review still dual because review is where bugs are caught cheap. Trigger on: short feature, small refactor, single hook, single script, isolated bug-fix-with-test, focused config rewrite, adding CLI subcommand. Russian: быстрый рефакторинг, мелкая фича, новый скрипт, хук, скрипт, исправление с тестом, фастлуп, fast-loop-coding, быстрый луп. Do NOT use for: 5-line fixes (just edit), migrations / rewrites / multi-file features (use loop-coding), production deploys, security-sensitive changes, RED files (CLAUDE.md / rules.md / USER.md), tasks crossing 3+ services. ESCAPE: if scope grows past 300 LOC or 3 files mid-task, abort and switch to loop-coding.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

19 rules. About 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈15

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use fast-loop-coding if ALL true:

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    No production deploy (staging OK)

    line 22
  3. Distinctive:

    No RED file edits

    line 23
  4. Distinctive:

    No external API contract changes

    line 24
  5. Distinctive:

    If ANY false -> use loop-coding (full 7-phase).

    line 26
  6. Distinctive:

    If ALL clearly micro (<= 20 LOC, 1 file, no test) -> just edit.

    line 28
  7. Distinctive:

    If unsure -> fast-loop-coding.

    line 30
  8. Very specific:

    Write loop-coding-runs/<date>-fast-<slug>/PLAN.md (template at bottom)

    line 38
  9. Distinctive:

    NO parallel research (Sonar+Sonnet) — task is small, agent context is enough

    line 39
  10. Distinctive:

    NO audit phase (Codex plan covers risk surface inline)

    line 40
  11. Distinctive:

    Run tests before review (do not punt)

    line 47
  12. Distinctive:

    If review still red after 1 fix -> escape to loop-coding

    line 57
  13. Distinctive:

    Commit + push (after review green)

    line 61
  14. Very specific:

    No staging dance for <= 300 LOC backend changes (unless deploy.sh requires)

    line 62
  15. Very specific:

    Update core/hot/handoff.md if non-obvious decision made

    line 63
  16. Distinctive:

    Test scope explodes (3+ test files)

    line 75
  17. Very specific:

    Add a PostToolUseFailure hook (~80 LOC, 2 files)

    line 101
  18. Distinctive:

    Write a one-shot validation script (~150 LOC)

    line 102
  19. Distinctive:

    Add CLI subcommand to existing tool

    line 104

≈ “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

fast-loop-coding

Speed-tuned cousin of loop-coding. For small, well-scoped tasks where the full 7-phase pipeline is overkill. Target: 3-4x faster than loop-coding.

Core principle

Single critic for plan, dual for review. Loop-coding (full) is dual on Audit/Plan/Review (defence in depth on big surface). Fast-loop drops Audit entirely, keeps Plan single-model (Codex GPT-5.5 — strong enough alone for small scope), and keeps Review dual (Codex+Opus parallel — cheap insurance once the code exists). If surface is small, one Codex plan converges; if not, escape valve to loop-coding. Aligns with core/rules.md > Model role split: Codex for critique/architecture, Opus for code, dual only on Review.

Decision tree (run BEFORE starting)

Use fast-loop-coding if ALL true:

  • Estimated LOC <= 300
  • Files touched <= 3
  • Single subsystem (no cross-service coupling)
  • Tests fit in one file
  • No production deploy (staging OK)
  • No RED file edits
  • No external API contract changes

If ANY false -> use loop-coding (full 7-phase).

If ALL clearly micro (<= 20 LOC, 1 file, no test) -> just edit. No skill needed.

If unsure -> fast-loop-coding. Easy to upgrade mid-task; hard to downgrade.

4 phases (vs loop-coding 7)

Phase 1: Plan (5 min cap) — Codex GPT-5.5

  • Single Codex pass: scope, files, est LOC, test cases, rollback
  • codex exec --skip-git-repo-check "<task brief + relevant file paths>" — Codex reads code itself
  • Write loop-coding-runs/<date>-fast-<slug>/PLAN.md (template at bottom)
  • NO parallel research (Sonar+Sonnet) — task is small, agent context is enough
  • NO audit phase (Codex plan covers risk surface inline)
  • Opus is NOT used here — saves subscription tokens for Implement and Review

Phase 2: Implement

  • Direct Edit/Write
  • Inline tests as you go (or right after)
  • Run tests before review (do not punt)

Phase 3: Review (dual pass — Codex + Opus parallel)

  • TWO reviewers in parallel:
    • Codex GPT-5.5: codex exec --skip-git-repo-check "review uncommitted diff: ..." (security, architecture, corner cases)
    • Opus code-reviewer subagent (readability, consistency, patterns, test quality)
  • Merge findings: CRITICAL + HIGH applied inline immediately
  • Defer MEDIUM + LOW unless trivial (note in PLAN.md)
  • ONE fix iteration max (apply both reviewers' criticals together)
  • If review still red after 1 fix -> escape to loop-coding

Phase 4: Ship

  • Commit + push (after review green)
  • No staging dance for <= 300 LOC backend changes (unless deploy.sh requires)
  • Update core/hot/handoff.md if non-obvious decision made
  • No decisions.md entry unless architectural trade-off

Escape valve (mid-task upgrade)

ABORT fast and switch to loop-coding if:

  • Scope balloons past 300 LOC (during implement)
  • 4th file needed
  • Architectural concern surfaces
  • Review found 2+ CRITICALs (signal: under-researched)
  • Discovered multi-subsystem coupling
  • Test scope explodes (3+ test files)

How to escape:

  1. Stop implementation
  2. bash skills/loop-coding/scripts/init-run.sh <slug> (full run dir)
  3. Copy current PLAN.md content into Phase 3 input of full pipeline
  4. Restart from loop-coding Phase 1 (Research)
  5. Mark the fast-run dir as aborted in PLAN.md

What this skill does NOT do (vs loop-coding)

Steploop-codingfast-loop-coding
ResearchSonar + Sonnet parallelnone (use context)
AuditCodex GPT-5.5 onlynone
PlanCodex GPT-5.5 only (arch + impl)Codex GPT-5.5 single pass
ImplementOpus subagents (parallel) + scaffold-testsOpus direct
ReviewCodex + Opus parallelCodex + Opus parallel
Fix-loopup to 3 iterations (Opus coder)1 iteration max (Opus coder)
Shippre-ship.sh, deploy-helper.shdirect commit + push
Skill auto-genskill-creator on gapsnone
Rented skillsyes (with security scan)no

When to choose what

fast-loop-coding examples:

  • Add a PostToolUseFailure hook (~80 LOC, 2 files)
  • Write a one-shot validation script (~150 LOC)
  • Refactor one function (extract helper, simplify)
  • Add CLI subcommand to existing tool
  • New shell helper + bash test
  • Tighten one regex pattern + regression test

loop-coding examples:

  • Migration (cognee, OpenRouter switch, backend swap)
  • Auth/permission rewrite (cross-cutting)
  • New skill with sub-skills + scripts
  • Anything touching CLAUDE.md / rules.md / USER.md
  • Multi-service change (gateway + bot + frontend)
  • Phase-gated rollout (dual-write windows, safety gates)

No skill needed (just edit):

  • Typo fix
  • Single comment add
  • Constant tweak
  • Single-line bugfix
  • Renaming one variable

PLAN.md template (abbreviated)

# <slug> — fast-loop

Goal: <one sentence>
Files: <list, absolute paths>
Est LOC: <number>
Tests: <how — file + cases>
Rollback: <command or revert hash>

## Steps
1. <step>
2. <step>
3. <step>

## Risks
- <risk> -> <mitigation>

## Review verdict
(filled after Phase 3)

## Ship
(filled after Phase 4: commits, push, handoff entry)

Init

bash ~/.claude/skills/fast-loop-coding/scripts/init-fast-run.sh <slug>
# prints run-dir path

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.