跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

mini-loop

Autonomous build-verify-fix loop that runs until an explicit Definition of Done passes. Use when named (mini-loop) or when the user says exactly "run a loop".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md4.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

mini-loop

Run any task to completion without mid-loop confirmation. Exit only when every Definition of Done item passes.

Pairs with just-stop: this skill keeps you looping until DoD passes; just-stop blocks optional polish after that.

When to use

  • User names this skill (mini-loop)
  • User says exactly: run a loop
  • Any use case with verifiable exit criteria: greenfield apps, features, refactors, docs, scripts, migrations

Core principles

  1. DoD is the exit gate — no "mostly done," no stopping on vibes
  2. Verify after every meaningful change — don't batch unverified work
  3. Infer verification — derive checks from the stack/repo; don't wait for the user to list commands
  4. Fast start, ask once — if goal or DoD is missing/mushy, ask once for only what's missing, then lock and go. No mid-loop confirmation after that (except secrets, credentials, or irreversible destructive action)
  5. Fix forward — errors and incomplete features re-enter the loop immediately

Input Brief

Users should attach what they can. Minimum useful prompt:

Goal: [what to produce]
Scope: [in / out — optional]
Definition of Done:
- [observable check]
- [observable check]
Constraints: [stack, design, don't-touch — optional]

Verify commands are optional — the agent infers them.

Process

0. Preflight (once)

From the prompt, check for:

  • Goal — clear enough to build without guessing product intent
  • DoD — explicit, observable checklist (or concrete enough to write one without inventing features)

If both are clear → lock immediately and start.

If either is missing or mushy → ask once, only for the gaps. Prefer a short checklist of questions over an interview. Do not ask for verify commands, stack preference, or polish details unless ambiguity would change the build.

After the user answers (or if they say "just go") → lock goal + DoD + scope/constraints as stated, then enter the loop. No further scope renegotiation mid-loop.

1. Lock the Definition of Done

Write the locked DoD as an explicit checklist. Every item must be observable (command succeeds, behavior works, artifact exists, UI state looks right). Prefer concrete checks over subjective ones.

Track it as a live checklist. Do not invent extra scope beyond what DoD requires.

2. Infer verification

From the repo/stack, pick the cheapest reliable checks that prove DoD items. Examples:

  • App/package: install → build → start/dev (or test) as appropriate
  • Library/script: typecheck/test/run the entrypoint
  • Docs/content: file exists, links resolve, required sections present
  • Refactor: existing tests/build still pass; targeted behavior still works

Prefer project-native commands (package.json scripts, Makefile, etc.) over ad-hoc ones. If multiple stacks are possible, choose what can be run and verified locally with the least friction.

3. Execute the loop

while any DoD item is unmet:
  1. Implement the next incomplete item
  2. Run inferred verification
  3. If fail → diagnose, fix, go to 2
  4. If pass → mark item done, continue

Rules inside the loop:

  • Work autonomously. Do not ask for confirmation between steps.
  • After each change that could break something, re-verify — don't accumulate debt.
  • Incomplete features count as failures. Re-enter the loop.
  • Stay on the critical path to DoD. No polish beyond what DoD demands unless polish is a DoD item.

4. Exit

Stop only when every DoD item passes verification.

Then give:

  1. Summary — what shipped, what's verified
  2. How to run / use — exact commands or next steps
  3. DoD checklist — each item marked passed

Anti-patterns

  • Starting the loop with a mushy goal/DoD instead of asking once
  • Turning preflight into a multi-round intake
  • Stopping because "it should work" without running verification
  • Asking "should I continue?" while DoD items remain open
  • Expanding scope past DoD mid-loop
  • Claiming done when build/dev/tests still fail

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

adhd

免费

Formats output for ADHD-friendly action — lead with the next step, number tasks, restate state, cut fluff. Use when named (adhd), when the user mentions ADHD or focus/executive-function constraints, or when they ask for steps they can execute immediately.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

nateslabach/skills62026年9月29日 更新

Devil's-advocate attack on AI workflow designs — threat model, assumption challenges, code critiques, and hypothetical redesigns with no file edits. Use for "attack this design", devil's advocate, or hostile challenge on agents/tools/summarization/tokens. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or self-review that applies fixes (ai-systems-review). Prefer: this skill → decide → ai-systems-review.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

nateslabach/skills62026年9月29日 更新

Hostile self-review of recently written AI workflow code that then applies fixes (agents, tools, chat context, summarization, tokens, attachments). Use after generating AI systems code, or when asked to self-review and harden it. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate attacks (adversarial-challenge). Prefer: adversarial-challenge → decide → this skill.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

nateslabach/skills62026年9月29日 更新

Writes in ASD-STE100 simplified technical English — short sentences, plain words, active voice. Use when the user wants terse technical prose, names this skill, or asks for STE100.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

nateslabach/skills62026年9月29日 更新

branding

免费

Builds personal brand assets using Seth Godin's frameworks: signature symbol, slogan, surprise (Purple Cow), salient idea, and signature story. Use when named (branding), or when the user asks for a brand symbol, slogan, tagline, Purple Cow, counterintuitive angle, core idea, brand story, or personal brand positioning.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

nateslabach/skills62026年9月29日 更新

Disables the AI's default hedging, diplomatic softening, and social-nicety layers to deliver cold, unfiltered, consequentialist analysis on any topic. Use when the user wants the AI's actual assessment without padding, regardless of how harsh or uncomfortable the honest answer is.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

nateslabach/skills62026年9月29日 更新

查看 nateslabach 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题