---
name: define-loop
description: Define a Loop — a durable scaffold that works a queue of recurring tasks autonomously (Sentry issues, Front tickets, small perf PRs) with its outputs held for human review. Use when someone wants an agent to keep doing a kind of work on a schedule, rather than one-off. Walks the interview, runs one real item live before arming anything, then writes the playbook and creates the loop.
---

# define-loop — author a Loop

A Loop is a cron with a memory and a gate: a trigger, a playbook, a ledger of work items
that survives across fires, ship-ready outputs held for a person, and a governor watching
its health. Reach for one when the ask is "keep doing this kind of work", not "do this".

Intake, work, and judge turns use the loop's existing owner/scope authorization,
credentials, command policy, and security posture. They run without surface tools or
addressed delivery. Intake reads candidates; work prepares outputs; the judge inspects
the work and executes the declared checks. Final external actions belong in the
approved ship stage. The review gate controls loop output shipping; it is not a
read-only sandbox for arbitrary shell commands or API calls in earlier stages.

A cron is enough when each fire is independent and nothing needs reviewing. Prefer the
cron; a loop earns its complexity only when work items persist, must not be worked twice,
and produce artifacts someone should see before they go out.

**The one rule: never arm a loop you have not watched work.** Stage 2 is not optional.

## Stage 1 — Interview

Get these, in the user's own words. Ask about them one or two at a time, not as a form.

| What                  | Why it matters                                                                                                                                                        |
| --------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Source of work**    | How to enumerate candidates each fire, and the stable id per item (Sentry issue id, Front conversation id). That id is the dedupe key — get it right or work repeats. |
| **Trigger**           | A cadence (calendar cron in their timezone) or an event. Ask when output is actually useful, not just how often.                                                      |
| **Success condition** | What "done" means for ONE item.                                                                                                                                       |
| **Ship actions**      | Which externally-visible actions the loop may take (`open_pr`, `send_email`, `front_reply`). Anything not declared is a quarantine when it happens.                   |
| **Caps**              | Optional. Propose defaults; record a decline without argument.                                                                                                        |
| **Escalation**        | Who the governor pings, and where.                                                                                                                                    |

### Writing the success condition

Free text, and it's the most load-bearing sentence in the loop. A good one has:

- **one measurable end state** — a test result, a linked PR, an empty queue
- **a stated check** — how the agent proves it ("`npm test` exits 0", "the PR shows CI green")
- **the constraints that matter** — what must not change on the way ("touches only the implicated module")
- **a bound** — "or park with a diagnosis after 5 turns", so a hopeless item stops burning money

> The Sentry issue has a linked PR whose tests pass and CI is green, the fix touches only
> the implicated module, or park with a diagnosis after 5 turns.

Add `successChecks` for anything a command can settle (`npm test`, `npm run lint`). The
judge runs each check and reports its command and result. A missing or failed reported
check prevents completion even when the judge claims success. Check results are
model-reported, not an independent deterministic execution attestation.

## Stage 2 — Shadow run (never skip)

Work **one real item end to end, in this conversation, with the user watching.** No loop
record exists yet.

1. Pull one real candidate from the source.
2. Do the whole job to the ship line — write the actual PR or the actual reply — and stop.
3. Show the user the finished artifact. Ask directly: would you have sent this?
4. Fix what they flag. Repeat on a second item if the first needed real correction.

Then write the playbook **from what you just did** — the steps that actually worked, the
dead ends worth skipping, the exact success condition you'd have wanted. A playbook
written before the shadow run is a guess; one written after is a procedure.

## Stage 3 — Emit

Create the loop with the `loop` tool: name, purpose, playbook, success condition, checks,
ship actions, caps, trigger. Every ship action starts at `hold` no matter what was asked
for — `auto` is earned in stage 4, never granted at creation.

State back to the user, in one message: what it will do, when it fires, what it will
produce, what it will hold for them, and how to pause it.

## Stage 4 — Supervised fires

Watch the first few fires with the user.

- Review the held outputs together the first time.
- When a slice of work has been shipped unchanged several times running, offer graduation:
  "always ship `open_pr` labelled `lint-fix` from this loop". That writes a standing grant
  and flips only that slice to `auto`. If the org disables always-grants, graduation is
  unavailable — say so plainly instead of half-doing it.
- If outputs keep coming back returned, the playbook is wrong, not the reviewer. Fix the
  playbook; a high return rate is the loudest signal a loop isn't working.

## Editing a live loop

Playbook edits are versioned with provenance, from chat or the UI — same path, one
history. "Skip payments-service tickets from now on" is a playbook edit, so make it one:
propose the diff, get agreement, write it. Never let a loop carry behavior that isn't
readable in its playbook.

## Refuse to arm

Say no, and say why, when:

- the user can't state a stable per-item id (work will repeat)
- the success condition has no measurable end state (nothing can judge it)
- `auto` is requested at creation on an externally-visible action (that's stage 4's job)
- the shadow run never produced an artifact the user would actually send