Methodology Skill Loop
Turn a proven method into a reusable agent skill with fit rules, steps, examples, and quality checks.
What this Loop Engineering template does
Convert one practical methodology into a reusable agent skill with clear fit, ordered steps, validation questions, and a small example.
Start from a method the team already understands. Keep the first version small enough to test with three representative tasks.
When to use it
When not to use it
Validation checks
Boundaries & stop rule
Copy the loop prompt
/goal Convert one practical methodology into a reusable agent skill with clear fit, ordered steps, validation questions, and a small example.Task type: CustomTarget tool: Claude CodeWork toward this goal until all validation checks pass or the stop rule is reached.Design hypothesis:This methodology skill loop can produce a safer result if the scope stays narrow, validation is explicit, and a checker can reject shortcut work.Smallest useful run:Run one bounded pass on the newest relevant signal before expanding scope or adding a schedule.Loop cycle:1. Discovery — Read the latest signal for this template before acting: CI output, issue detail, review comment, dataset report, or content brief.2. Handoff — Hand the work to one agent in an isolated branch, worktree, or clearly scoped session. Keep final approval with a human.3. Verification — Use an independent review pass to confirm the result, inspect the diff or artifact, and reject shortcut work.4. Persistence — Save a short run note with the signal reviewed, actions taken, validation result, and next recommended step.5. Scheduling — Run manually until the loop is reliable; only then consider a scheduled or event-triggered run.Context:Start from a method the team already understands. Keep the first version small enough to test with three representative tasks.Validation:The skill names when to use and when not to use the methodSteps are ordered and observableQuality checks can reject weak outputAt least one example input and output is includedValidation evidence:Record the original signal, checks run, final result, changed files or artifacts, and any checker rejection.Independent checker:Use an independent review pass to confirm the result, inspect the diff or artifact, and reject shortcut work.Boundaries:Do not claim the method is universalDo not invent facts about the method's originDo not remove human review for high-stakes outputsDo not add execution or API calls to the skill definitionStop rule:Stop when the skill passes three test tasks or after 3 failed revisions.Maximum iterations: 3Budget:Example only: stop before exceeding the agreed per-run token budget.Human approval:Required before merge, deploy, delete, purchase, or external communication.Fallback:If the method does not fit the task, recommend a better method and explain why.Loop Validation Log:- Hypothesis: This methodology skill loop can produce a safer result if the scope stays narrow, validation is explicit, and a checker can reject shortcut work.- Smallest useful run: Run one bounded pass on the newest relevant signal before expanding scope or adding a schedule.- Expected evidence: Record the original signal, checks run, final result, changed files or artifacts, and any checker rejection.- Actual evidence: [fill in after the run]- Passed? [yes / no / partial]- Feedback: After the run, note what the loop learned, what failed, and what should change before the next pass.- Next step: [stop / adjust the loop / run the next pass]Do not delete tests, bypass checks, or modify unrelated files just to satisfy the validation condition. If blocked, stop and summarize the blocker, attempted fixes, and recommended next action.
Failure modes to watch
Review receipt
This is a bounded review exercise for the template, not a claim about a production deployment.
Scenario
A repeated content review process is being converted into a reusable skill for future site audits.
Baseline evidence
The author gathers the original method, three representative tasks, failure examples, required inputs, decision boundaries, and commands that were actually verified.
Validation result
The skill routes correctly on the representative tasks, exposes its assumptions, produces the required evidence, and refuses a task outside its permissions instead of improvising authority.
Shortcut rejected
Encoding one successful conversation as a universal method or inventing missing source requirements is rejected.
Human gate
The method owner reviews trigger scope, safety rules, and examples before the skill is shared; future results remain subject to task-specific verification.
Loop Engineering FAQ
No. It creates and tests a reusable skill definition. Execution stays with the user and their chosen agent tool.