Agent skill

task-coding-loop

Earn trust through verification. Invoke at session start to establish verifiable checkpoints (environment, baseline, completion). Trust comes from gates, not claims.

Stars 163
Forks 31

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/tree/main/skills/data/task-coding-loop

SKILL.md

Coding Loop

Trust is earned, not assumed.

Context: Where Coding-Loop Fits

This skill operates within the Execute stage of RSID:

USER-DRIVEN:    Listen → Execute ← YOU ARE HERE → Reflect
AUTONOMOUS:     Ideate → Execute ← YOU ARE HERE → Reflect

After completing Execute (PR merged), invoke rsid skill to Reflect and record learnings.

The Principle

You have autonomy to change code. That autonomy requires accountability:

Claim Gate
"Environment is safe" devcontainer OR explicit host acknowledgment
"Starting state is clean" ./verify.sh --agent passes
"Changes are correct" ./verify.sh --agent passes
"Work is complete" PR merged + main verified

No gate, no trust.

Session Gates

  1. Start: Verify baseline green before writing code
  2. Design: Invoke coding-patterns before creating new packages (see Pre-Design Gate below)
  3. Implement: Verify after significant changes
  4. Pre-PR: Pass hard gates (see below) before creating PR
  5. Review: Spawn tsc-reviewer subagent (MANDATORY - do NOT self-review)
  6. Complete: PR merged (not just created) + main verified post-merge
  7. Reflect: Invoke rsid to record learnings in memory.yaml
  8. Stuck: After 3 failed attempts → escalate, don't loop

Hard Gates (Blocking)

These gates MUST be satisfied before PR creation:

0. Pre-Design Gate (for new packages)

Before designing new contract/port packages, invoke coding-patterns skill and answer:

  • Is this a capability (interface with methods) or data structure (pure types)?
  • If data structure: are operations in port as pure functions (not methods on contract)?
  • Does this follow existing package patterns in the monorepo?

If creating packages without this gate: Design will likely conflate data and operations. Stop, invoke skill, redesign.

1. Commit Atomicity Gate

bash
# Check commit count and size
git log --oneline main..HEAD
git diff --stat main..HEAD
Commits Lines Changed Action Required
1 > 200 SPLIT: Use git rebase -i main per effective-git
Any > 500 total SPLIT: Break into logical units

If gate fails: Invoke effective-git skill and restructure before PR.

2. Subagent Review Gate

Before merge, the tsc-reviewer subagent MUST approve:

Spawn: "Use the tsc-reviewer agent to review this PR"

Loop until:
  - Verdict = APPROVED
  - Blockers = 0

Only then: gh pr merge

If subagent not spawned: Review is incomplete. Do not merge. If blockers remain: Address findings, re-spawn subagent, repeat.

3. Size-Based Skill Invocation

Change Size Required Skills
< 50 lines coding-loop (this)
50-200 lines + tsc-reviewer (agent for review)
> 200 lines + effective-git (restructure first)
> 10 files Consider human review escalation

Commands

bash
./verify.sh --agent    # Minimal output: VERIFY:PASS or structured failure
git status -sb         # Know your state
gh pr diff <n>         # Review before merge (mandatory)

Slash Commands

Use these for accelerated workflows:

Command Purpose
/verify Run full pipeline or specific stage
/verify-lint [package] Quick lint check with optional scope
/lint-and-learn Auto-fix lint + extract lessons + create PR
/tsc-review <pr> Spawn TSC reviewer with auto-merge on APPROVED

Deeper Guidance

  • rsid → outer context, post-merge reflection
  • plan-writing → rigorous plans for distinguished engineers
  • coding-patterns → architecture patterns
  • tsc-reviewer (agent) → mandatory PR review before merge (contains all review criteria)
  • effective-git → commit discipline
  • verification-pipeline → debugging failures
  • devcontainer-sandboxing → environment safety
  • pull-request → PR authoring and review workflow

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results