| name | software-factory |
| version | 0.0.6 |
| description | Design or harden a software factory: an agentic loop that iterates toward a goal with a verification gate, persistent state, and a stop condition. Use for "build a loop", "agentic loop", "self-iterating agent", "/loop", "/goal", "Ralph loop", "maker-checker", "agentic SDLC", "ADW", or when picking a verification gate or bounding a loop's blast radius. |
Software Factory
A prompt hands an agent one instruction and waits for you. A loop hands the agent a job, a way to know when the job is done, and a rule for when to give up — then runs the full cycle on its own until the goal is met. This skill is how we design loops that survive production instead of billing you in silence.
Call the concept by its older name: this is the software development lifecycle. A "loop" is one control-flow primitive inside a larger AI developer workflow — the plan → build → test → review → ship pipeline engineers used to walk by hand, now staffed by agents and deterministic code with an engineer at exactly two points: the plan going in (prompting is planning) and the review coming out (validation). Everything between those two constraints is system. The skill is named for the whole factory, with the iterate-until-verified loop as its engine — design the whole workflow, and remember the highest-leverage work is building the system that builds the system — the agentic layer, where one improvement multiplies across every future run.
The single most important idea: the gate is the loop. Without a real, automated check on the result, you don't have a loop — you have an agent agreeing with itself on repeat. Everything else (scheduling, sub-agents, connectors) is plumbing around that one load-bearing part. Design the gate first.
Three actors: code, engineers, agents
Every workflow node is staffed by one of three actors, and reliability ranks them code > engineers > agents. Code runs deterministically at zero token cost and never hallucinates; agents are the most expensive and least reliable actor in the system. The placement heuristic: push every deterministic step — lint, format, typecheck, test runs, status updates, result routing — into plain code, and reserve agents for the judgment steps code can't do. Staffing an agent where code suffices is the most common way loops burn money. The corollary for gates: run checks as separate code, feed failures back to the maker agent in the same session, and never bury the whole ladder inside one mega-skill the agent interprets (see failure modes).
The five building blocks
Every production loop is assembled from these five. Claude Code ships all of them.
| Block | What it is | Our tooling |
|---|
| 1. Heartbeat | the trigger that makes it a loop, not a one-off: schedule + goal | /loop, /goal, hooks, CronCreate, ScheduleWakeup, GitHub Actions |
| 2. Skill | reusable instructions the loop reads each pass (rules + a never-touch list) | this skill + the project's loop config |
| 3. Sub-agents | split the maker (does the work) from the checker (verifies it) | hunter-skeptic-referee, code-auditor, tester |
| 4. Connectors | let the loop act — open the PR, comment the ticket, ping the channel | Linear MCP, gh, resend, devops |
| 5. Verifier (the gate) | the test/typecheck/build/exercise that automatically rejects bad output | tester (Jason) — owns running it |
The maker is too generous grading its own homework, so block 3 (a separate, often stronger checker) plus block 5 (an objective gate) is most of the quality. Make the maker fast and cheap; make the checker slow and strict.
Watching the factory floor: looptop (npm install -g looptop) is htop for these loops — a live terminal monitor plus a macOS menu-bar app showing every running loop's status. Optional, and worth installing the day more than one loop runs unattended; the setup installer checks for it.
Worker types — coordinated through tickets
In the factory analogy, a loop is a factory worker — a worker with one specific job. ("Loop" and "worker" are used interchangeably throughout this skill; the vocabulary didn't change, the analogy just got a name.) Most real work needs more than one worker type running in parallel, with the ticketing system (the State block) as the seam between them. The two that coordinate through the same ticket queue are a producer/consumer pair — discovery produces work, execution consumes it — plus a third, maintenance, that keeps the factory itself healthy (see below).
DISCOVERY WORKER (free-roam loop) EXECUTION WORKER (systematic loop)
┌───────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────┐
│ roam the app like a human │ files │ pull an open ticket │
│ randomized human-like │ tickets │ work it end-to-end │
│ paths, weird inputs │ ────────▶ │ verify at the gate │
│ surface anomalies │ TICKETS │ close the ticket │
│ dedup vs OPEN tickets │ ◀──────── │ (free-roam the fixed area │
│ file NEW tickets │ reads │ as the top verify rung) │
└───────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────┘
PRODUCER CONSUMER
The worker roster:
- Execution worker (execution loop) — pulls a ticket, works it, gates it, closes it. Run via
Skill(superpowers:subagent-driven-development) or a fleet via Skill(orchestra:wave-coordinator).
- Discovery worker (discovery loop) — runs the product like a user, surfaces bugs nobody knew existed, and files deduped tickets for the execution worker to pick up. Owned by
Skill(core:free-roam-testing).
- Maintenance worker (maintenance loop) — recurring upkeep that keeps the factory itself healthy rather than shipping a ticket. See "Maintenance workers & looptop" below.
The dedup-vs-open-tickets step is what stops discovery from re-filing the same issue every pass. Always read open tickets before filing new ones.
At factory scale, a router sits above all worker types: work arrives typed (chore, bug, feature, hotfix), and the router picks the workflow and the model tier for it — a workhorse maker for volume, a state-of-the-art model only where planning or checking earns it. Speed-critical work (hotfixes) can race: several isolated agents attack the same fix in parallel and the first one through the gate wins. Isolation progresses with maturity — git worktrees are a great place to start and a poor place to end; sandboxes give full isolation plus a place a human can step into mid-run.
On Claude Code specifically, staged fan-outs inside a loop pass — find → adversarially verify → synthesize, judge panels, loop-until-dry discovery — can run as a native Workflow (deterministic script, live /workflows progress, resumable). This is framework-dependent and opt-in-gated; see skills/coordinator/references/native-workflows.md for when it applies. On other runtimes, the manual wave protocols in wave-coordinator do the same job.
Agent runtime selection
Keep the factory's ticket/state backend separate from runtime checkpoints. For
AI SDK v7 applications, use WorkflowAgent when tool steps, approvals, and
stream reconnection need workflow durability. Use HarnessAgent when an
established sandboxed coding runtime should own the session, after verifying
the experimental harness package against the installed docs.
For bOpen systems covered by the eve adoption plan, treat eve as a conditional
candidate behind the bOpen-owned ACL/persistence proxy. The Phase-2 seam tests
must prove ownership, Postgres durability, restart/resume, dynamic agent
resolution, and deterministic subagent dispatch. A failed proof selects the
v7-native runtime behind the same application conversation and persistence
contracts.
Maintenance workers & looptop
The third worker type isn't "build this ticket" (execution) or "find what's broken" (discovery) — it's the recurring upkeep that keeps the factory itself healthy: dependency updates, link checks, stale-ticket sweeps, catalog freshness. Its gate is usually "did the check come back clean," not "did a feature ship."
Cadence patterns — pick one per project:
- Dedicated schedule — its own heartbeat (e.g. a weekly dependency-bump cron), independent of execution volume.
- Alternating with execution — one worker splits its time, running as execution or maintenance on alternating passes — "half the time one or the other." Cheaper than a second worker when upkeep volume is low.
- Two parallel workers — a standing maintenance loop runs alongside the execution loop once upkeep volume earns its own heartbeat.
Watching the factory floor with looptop:
- Loops are discovered from their LaunchAgents:
~/Library/LaunchAgents/ai.<slug>.loop.exec.plist.
looptop ls / looptop status / looptop tail / looptop pause / looptop resume — list, inspect, and control any running loop.looptop run <slug> [exec|maintenance] kickstarts a worker of the given type on demand.- Each loop's state file carries a
paused flag in state.json that pause/resume toggle — resume picks the worker back up from where the state file left off (the state-file contract in references/state-backends.md).
- Install with
npm install -g looptop; the setup installer already checks for it (setup/manifest.json), so a factory-init'd project has nothing extra to wire up.
Do you even need a loop?
Loops are real, but most tasks don't need the heavy version. Build one only when all four are true — miss one box and keep it a manual prompt:
- The task repeats (at least weekly). Below that, setup never pays itself back.
- Something can automatically reject bad output — a test, typecheck, build, linter, or hard rule. No gate ⇒ the loop just spins.
- The agent can do the work end-to-end without handing half of it back to a human.
- "Done" is objective, not a matter of taste. If quality is a judgment call, a human still wins.
If it doesn't pass, say so and recommend a single good prompt instead. The honest version of this skill: don't force loops into places they don't belong — you'll just burn money for nothing.
Blast radius — the one classifier that governs everything
Reversibility of an action — not its reliability score — decides three things at once: how autonomous the loop may be, what free roam may touch, and whether cleanup is required. A 99%-accept loop can still ship a catastrophic 1% irreversible outcome, so reliability promotes you within a tier, never across the irreversibility line.
| Tier | Example actions | Autonomy gate | Free roam | Cleanup |
|---|
| Low (reversible) | reads, drafts, sandbox/ephemeral writes | self-certify once the gate is green + audit log | roam freely | none needed |
| Medium | staging changes, external messages, non-destructive writes | timed human review window | safe mutations only | teardown or gate |
| High (irreversible) | prod deploy, data deletion, payments, push to main | mandatory human approval, regardless of accept-rate history | never (unless on ephemeral env) | must be gated |
Reserve human gates for irreversible actions only — humans rubber-stamp when asked too often (approval fatigue), so over-gating reduces safety. See references/blast-radius.md for the promotion protocol (prove 3–5 runs watched → confirm sandbox + circuit breaker → promote to unattended).
Build order: prove → harden → automate
The order matters more than the tools. Scheduling something you haven't made reliable by hand is exactly how loops blow up while you sleep.
- Design it by doing it — walk every node of the workflow yourself, by hand, once. Sketch the result (a Mermaid diagram earns its keep here). Encode only steps you have personally executed; a node you've never run manually is a guess wearing automation.
- Prove it once — run the full cycle manually, watched, on a real case. Confirm the gate actually fails bad output.
- Harden it — add the stop conditions, circuit breaker, state file, never-touch list; run it watched a few more times; measure accept rate.
- Automate it — only now wire the heartbeat (cron/
/loop/Actions). Promotion respects the blast-radius tier above.
Stop conditions — never optional
Every loop needs at least one of each, or it runs until it succeeds, breaks, or drains the account:
- Success stop — the gate goes green / the measurable condition is met.
- Failure stop — a hard iteration cap (start 15–20, raise only as proven) and ≤ 2–3 retries per action.
- Budget stop — a pre-flight cost circuit breaker (check before each model call, never after) + a hard dollar/wall-clock ceiling.
Self-improving caps: the cap is raised by evidence, not vibes. When the process surfaces a defect, fix it; when accept rate proves out, raise the cap and log that decision in the state backend. The loop improves itself.
The metric that matters: cost per accepted change
Not tokens spent, not loops run. If the loop gives ten results and you toss six, you're doing the review work it was meant to save. Below a 50% accept rate it costs more than it gives back — halt and report. CFO (Milton) owns tracking this; context re-reads compound every iteration, so cost is super-linear, not linear.
Configuring a loop: run the questionnaire
Decisions 3, 4, and 5 below are per-project — you must ask the project, never assume. Use references/config-questionnaire.md for the full interview; the /factory-init command runs it interactively. The ten fields:
- Goal — the recursive goal; what does objective "done" look like?
- Gate — what automatically rejects bad output? Required rung on the ladder:
static (typecheck/lint) → unit → integration → real-app exercise.
- Environment — ephemeral/preview when available (nothing to clean up); prod is fine for early/simple apps. Ask.
- Side-effects & cleanup — does verification mutate state? ephemeral vs register-teardown vs acceptable-to-leave. Ask. Don't bend the app's mechanics to enforce teardown.
- State backend — Linear / GitHub Issues / Repo vault (Obsidian-compatible). Ask. (
references/state-backends.md)
- Maker/checker — separate checker agent? cheap maker (Haiku-tier reads/diffs) + strict checker (strong model, high effort).
- Stop conditions — cap, success condition, budget, halt-below-accept-rate.
- Heartbeat — manual now (prove) or scheduled (cron/
/loop/Actions/hook)? cadence?
- Connectors — what does it act on? (open PR, comment ticket, ping channel)
- Economics — track cost-per-accepted-change? budget ceiling?
Failure modes — design the guards in
Loops fail quietly, not loudly. Before shipping, walk references/failure-modes.md and confirm a guard for each: the Ralph Wiggum premature-done, silent runaway, context rot, phantom implementation, scope creep, comprehension debt, approval fatigue, injection propagation, and the mega-skill — one giant skill that interprets the whole build-check-route pipeline in a single agent context, which makes every step untestable and every failure invisible. The two cheapest guards that prevent the most damage: an objective external gate (not LLM self-assessment) and a pre-flight budget breaker.
Who does what (roster)
agent-builder (Satchmo) — loop architect; runs this skill, assembles the five blocks, owns the design.tester (Jason) — the execution worker's gate; implements and runs verification at the required rung.free-roam-testing — the discovery worker; roams the product like a user and files deduped tickets.project-manager — the state layer; tickets as worker memory across all three backends.devops — heartbeat + connectors for every worker type, including maintenance-worker cadence; cron/Actions, circuit breakers, the promotion gate.code-auditor / hunter-skeptic-referee — adversarial maker/checker separation.CFO (Milton) — cost-per-accepted-change watchdog.wave-coordinator — fleets of workers at scale.
Register every worker with looptop at configuration time, paused — see
references/looptop-registration.md for the exact on-disk contract (plist,
state dir, manifest, ledger schemas). A worker invisible to looptop is a
worker nobody can observe, pause, or kickstart; prove-phase means paused
registration, never no registration.
References
references/config-questionnaire.md — the full per-project loop interview, field by field.references/blast-radius.md — tiering detail + the prove→harden→automate promotion protocol.references/failure-modes.md — the catalog of quiet failure modes and their guards.references/looptop-registration.md — the worker registration contract, verified against looptop source.references/state-backends.md — Linear vs GitHub Issues vs repo-vault, with the state-file contract.
