agentleFS
robinebersrobinebers/openusage/.agents/skills/sol-loop/SKILL.md

sol-loop

Skill4.5k starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review a change in rounds with GPT 6.1 Sol as a separate reviewer until it approves or the budget runs out. Use when the user says "sol loop" or asks for a Sol review loop before shipping.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 2 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 2

    Common

    Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    Stop early if a round returns only nits.

    line 14
  2. Common:

    Keep a ledger: id, severity, outcome, usage if returned.

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Run git status --short. Never stash, discard, or include unrelated changes.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    If no route reaches Sol, stop and tell the user.

    line 35
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not edit scoped files while Sol runs.

    line 37
  6. Distinctive:

    Check each finding and severity yourself.

    line 57
  7. Very specific:

    Update the ledger. Re-run checks and git diff --shortstat <base>.

    line 63
  8. Distinctive:

    Never push during the loop.

    line 73
  9. Very specific:

    Add on <effort> only if verified.

    line 77

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

sol-loop

GPT 6.1 Sol reviews your change in rounds. Make the smallest changes that answer it, avoid scope creep, and push back when it is wrong.

Budget

  • 3 rounds. Round 1 is full; later rounds check only changed code and open findings.
  • 5 only if the user asks, or for security, permissions, auth, data loss, or state/concurrency while a blocker or should stays open with evidence.
  • Stop early if a round returns only nits. Declined nits and comment, doc, or format-only fixes need no new round.
  • One reviewer only. Sol must not start subagents or reviewers.
  • Keep a ledger: id, severity, outcome, usage if returned. Never guess usage.

1. Scope

Run git status --short. Never stash, discard, or include unrelated changes; if they don't separate cleanly by path, stop and ask.

After git fetch origin, base is git merge-base HEAD origin/<PR base or default branch>. For a PR, HEAD must be the PR head or ahead only by this change. No remote: a base the user names, or HEAD for uncommitted changes only. The change is base to working tree, untracked files included; use the same diff every round.

State intent and out-of-scope in 1-2 sentences. Run the covering checks (swift build, script/test_quiet.sh --filter <Suite>); never send code the change breaks. Note missing or already-failing checks in the brief.

2. Start Sol

The reviewer is GPT 6.1 Sol, unless the user names another Sol version. Reach it the way your harness allows:

  • Capy: a subagent or thread on model openai/gpt-6.1-sol; keep its path or code for later rounds.
  • Cursor: a background agent or new chat with GPT 6.1 Sol selected.
  • Claude Code and other harnesses without GPT models: Codex CLI, codex exec -m gpt-6.1-sol - with the brief on stdin (read-only sandbox by default). Note the session id it prints; codex exec resume <SESSION_ID> continues it.
  • Anything else: give the user the brief to run in a Sol session and wait for the reply.

If no route reaches Sol, stop and tell the user. Never substitute another model, and never count a self-review as a round. Record provider, model, and effort only if your harness shows them.

Do not edit scoped files while Sol runs. Wait for the result; do not poll or start a second reviewer. A timeout, error, or no reply is not approval. On failure, cancel, confirm it stopped, and restart with the ledger.

Round 1 brief (Sol has none of your context):

Review only. Do not edit, commit, push, comment on PRs, or start subagents.
Repo: <abs path> Base: <sha> Intent: <intent> Out of scope: <scope> Checks: <results>
See: git diff <base> [-- <paths>]; git status --short (read untracked).
Read surrounding code. Find bugs, broken callers, mismatch with intent.
Skip style unless it hides a bug. Hold to the smallest change. Flag code,
tests, or guards the intent does not need. Other paths, rare cases, small
perf, extra compat: nits.
blocker = intended case wrong. should = real bug callers will hit, in intent. nit = rest.
Reply:
VERDICT: APPROVE or CHANGES
S1 [blocker|should|nit] <file>:<line> <claim>. Fix: <suggestion> (stable ids)

3. Answer findings

Check each finding and severity yourself; another path, rare case, or small cost is a nit whatever its label.

  • Agree: smallest fix, preferring delete or narrow over a new lock, cache, helper, or option. Fix the case that happened. One focused test that fails without the fix, if the intent needs it.
  • Disagree: say why with evidence (file:line, test, output).
  • Out of scope or nit: decline in one line, list as follow-up.

Update the ledger. Re-run checks and git diff --shortstat <base>; if review grew the diff, cut first. Never agree just to end the loop.

4. Next round

Only if budget remains and a blocker or should is open, behavior code changed, or approval does not cover the current behavior diff. Follow up the same Sol session, or start a fresh one. Send the round 1 brief, the ledger (fixed: / disagree: / declined: with evidence), the same base diff, and the change since last round. Tell Sol: open ids and changed code only, marking each old id resolved or still open: <reason>.

5. Stop and ship

Agreed: APPROVE on the current behavior diff, no blocker or should open, no concern of your own. Stuck: an item disputed after two replies, or budget spent; show both sides in 2-3 lines each and let the user decide. Budget end is not approval.

Never push during the loop; after agreement, push only if the user asked to push, ship, or update the PR. On a PR, add to the description:

Reviewed with sol-loop: <N> rounds with GPT 6.1 Sol. Sol verdict: approved

Add on <effort> only if verified.

Report: rounds with GPT 6.1 Sol, what Sol changed, diff size before and after, fixed and declined findings with reasons, usage if shown (else say not), pushed or not.

Adapted from sol-loop in t3dotgg/tstack (MIT, Copyright (c) 2026 Theo Browne).

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

More talk lately.about the whole repository

Dec 2025: 0 mentionsJan 2026: 0 mentionsFeb 2026: 2 mentionsMar 2026: 0 mentionsApr 2026: 6 mentionsMay 2026: 0 mentionsJun 2026: 1 mentionJul 2026: 1 mentionAug 2026: 6 mentionsSep 2026: 7 mentionsOct 2026: 17 mentionsNov 2026: 0 mentions
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the robinebers/openusage repository that our weekly crawl found. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Who's talking about robinebers/openusage

The biggest 5 of 40 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 40

Talked about on GitHub, Bluesky and Hacker News (40 times).

On GitHub · 37

32 more on GitHub

On Hacker News · 1

  • Other versions7 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 6

    1. t3dotgg/tstack★ 2.5k46% same
    2. connorch/skills★ 239% same
    3. Dhruv2mars/skills★ 233% same
    4. johnnygreco/skills★ 146% same
    5. luisgui1757/sentinel★ 042% same
    6. shubrt/skills★ 046% same

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. salalaslam/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.

  • Used alongsideProjects with it also use leaving-pr-comments, full-stop and 6 more.

    Other files people use alongside this one.

    Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
    • Dhruv2marsSkill

      leaving-pr-comments

      Format and post agent-authored GitHub pull request

      Also in 6 projects that use this

    • Nexus-Organization-InfosecSkill

      full-stop

      Shut down the Full Control phone-bridge completely — end Claude's watch loop, stop the bridge server (server.py started via ensure_server.ps1), and mark Claude offline in the app. Use whenever the user invokes /full-stop or says "stop full control", "stop the watch loop", "shut down the bridge/server", or "stop the ps1". Counterpart of [[full-control]], which starts everything.

      Also in 6 projects that use this

    • shhacSkill

      full-send

      Complete an explicitly assigned task autonomously through parallel agents, peer-reviewed decisions, and automatic retries of temporary blockers. Use only when the user explicitly invokes Full Send.

      Also in 6 projects that use this

    • assisjpSkill

      takeover

      Take over an existing branch, pull request, worktree, or agent handoff while preserving the original goal, contributor credit, and concurrent work. Use when the user asks to take over, finish, rescue, or continue someone else's implementation. Do not use to replace a clear request to start new work.

      Also in 4 projects that use this

    • garrytanSkill

      modernize

      Bring an aging pull request onto its current base and decide whether it should still exist: MODERNIZE, REWORK or CLOSE, with range-diff proof before any push. (gstack)

      Also in 4 projects that use this

    • assisjpSkill

      file-pr

      Prepare and open or update an authorized pull request with a concise problem-first description and verifiable evidence. Use when the user asks to create, file, open, or update a PR. Do not use merely to review a diff or when publication is not authorized.

      Also in 6 projects that use this

  • In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.

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.