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.
In this repository43 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-browserSkill
- agent-introspectionSkill
- agentos-contentSkill
- carousel-instagramSkill
- chat-archiveSkill
- codex-imageSkill
- content-engineSkill
- cross-reviewSkill
- datawrapperSkill
- dev-pipelineSkill
- excalidrawSkill
- groq-voiceSkill
- higgsfield-generateSkill
- higgsfield-marketplace-cardsSkill
- higgsfield-product-photoshootSkill
- higgsfield-soul-idSkill
- instagram-superpowerSkill
- learningsSkill
- loop-codingSkill
- markdown-newSkill
- mcp-api-buildSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- memory-auditSkill
- miro-boardSkill
- perplexity-researchSkill
- presentSkill
- reel-radarSkill
- reels-analytics-for-brokersSkill
- reelsSkill
- remote-agent-desktopSkill
- security-auditSkill
- senior-brainstormSkill
- seo-tuneSkill
- server-doctorSkill
- telegram-chipSkill
- threads-contentSkill
- topic-monitorSkill
- transcriptSkill
- twitterSkill
- workshopSkill
- youtube-producerSkill
- youtube-thumbnailSkill
- yt-researchSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 16
Use fast-loop-coding if ALL true:
- Distinctive: line 22
No production deploy (staging OK)
- Distinctive: line 23
No RED file edits
- Distinctive: line 24
No external API contract changes
- Distinctive: line 26
If ANY false -> use loop-coding (full 7-phase).
- Distinctive: line 28
If ALL clearly micro (<= 20 LOC, 1 file, no test) -> just edit.
- Distinctive: line 30
If unsure -> fast-loop-coding.
- Very specific: line 38
Write loop-coding-runs/<date>-fast-<slug>/PLAN.md (template at bottom)
- Distinctive: line 39
NO parallel research (Sonar+Sonnet) — task is small, agent context is enough
- Distinctive: line 40
NO audit phase (Codex plan covers risk surface inline)
- Distinctive: line 47
Run tests before review (do not punt)
- Distinctive: line 57
If review still red after 1 fix -> escape to loop-coding
- Distinctive: line 61
Commit + push (after review green)
- Very specific: line 62
No staging dance for <= 300 LOC backend changes (unless deploy.sh requires)
- Very specific: line 63
Update core/hot/handoff.md if non-obvious decision made
- Distinctive: line 75
Test scope explodes (3+ test files)
- Very specific: line 101
Add a PostToolUseFailure hook (~80 LOC, 2 files)
- Distinctive: line 102
Write a one-shot validation script (~150 LOC)
- Distinctive: line 104
Add CLI subcommand to existing tool
≈ “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.
Files
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-reviewersubagent (readability, consistency, patterns, test quality)
- Codex GPT-5.5:
- 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.mdif non-obvious decision made - No
decisions.mdentry 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:
- Stop implementation
bash skills/loop-coding/scripts/init-run.sh <slug>(full run dir)- Copy current PLAN.md content into Phase 3 input of full pipeline
- Restart from loop-coding Phase 1 (Research)
- Mark the fast-run dir as
abortedin PLAN.md
What this skill does NOT do (vs loop-coding)
| Step | loop-coding | fast-loop-coding |
| Research | Sonar + Sonnet parallel | none (use context) |
| Audit | Codex GPT-5.5 only | none |
| Plan | Codex GPT-5.5 only (arch + impl) | Codex GPT-5.5 single pass |
| Implement | Opus subagents (parallel) + scaffold-tests | Opus direct |
| Review | Codex + Opus parallel | Codex + Opus parallel |
| Fix-loop | up to 3 iterations (Opus coder) | 1 iteration max (Opus coder) |
| Ship | pre-ship.sh, deploy-helper.sh | direct commit + push |
| Skill auto-gen | skill-creator on gaps | none |
| Rented skills | yes (with security scan) | no |
When to choose what
fast-loop-coding examples:
- Add a
PostToolUseFailurehook (~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 pathDoes 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
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.

