ralph-loop-integration

name	ralph-loop-integration
description	Persistent iteration wrapper for cognitive reasoning patterns using ralph-loop's Stop hook mechanism. Use when high confidence (>90%) is required, complex multi-pattern orchestration needs iterative refinement, self-correcting analysis is needed, or long-running tasks require checkpointed persistence. Wraps IR-v2 patterns in completion promise-gated loops.
license	MIT

Ralph-Loop Integration for Cognitive Reasoning

Purpose: Integrate ralph-loop's persistent iteration mechanism with cognitive reasoning patterns. Ralph provides session persistence through Stop hooks and completion promises, enabling iterative refinement of reasoning until confidence thresholds are genuinely met.

Core Concept: Ralph-Loop Mechanics

What Ralph Does

Ralph is a Claude Code plugin that provides:

1. Stop Hook Blocking: Intercepts session exit and re-feeds the prompt
2. Completion Promise Gating: Exit only when <promise> tag evaluates to genuinely true
3. State Persistence: Maintains iteration context in .claude/ralph-loop.local.md
4. Anti-Gaming Protection: Promise must be genuinely satisfied, not just claimed

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Ralph-Loop Wrapper                    │
│                                                         │
│  ┌─────────────┐     ┌─────────────┐     ┌──────────┐  │
│  │ Iteration 1 │ ──→ │ Iteration 2 │ ──→ │   ...    │  │
│  │ (Pattern A) │     │ (Pattern B) │     │          │  │
│  └─────────────┘     └─────────────┘     └──────────┘  │
│         │                   │                  │        │
│         └───────────────────┴──────────────────┘        │
│                           │                             │
│                           ▼                             │
│                   ┌───────────────┐                     │
│                   │ Stop Hook     │                     │
│                   │ Evaluation    │                     │
│                   └───────┬───────┘                     │
│                           │                             │
│              ┌────────────┼────────────┐                │
│              │            │            │                │
│              ▼            │            ▼                │
│    ┌─────────────┐        │   ┌─────────────┐          │
│    │  Promise    │        │   │  Promise    │          │
│    │  NOT MET    │        │   │    MET      │          │
│    │  → Re-loop  │        │   │  → Exit     │          │
│    └─────────────┘        │   └─────────────┘          │
│                           │                             │
└───────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┘
                            │
                            ▼
                    .claude/ralph-loop.local.md
                    (State persistence)

Ralph State File Structure

# .claude/ralph-loop.local.md

## Session: auth-system-design-20260118
## Completion Promise: Recommendation ready at >90% confidence

### Iteration History

#### Iteration 1 (BoT)
- **Pattern**: Breadth of Thought
- **Duration**: 18 minutes
- **Confidence Achieved**: 78%
- **Key Findings**: 8 approaches explored, 5 retained above 40%
- **Next Pattern Recommendation**: ToT to optimize top 3
- **Promise Status**: NOT MET (78% < 90%)

#### Iteration 2 (ToT)
- **Pattern**: Tree of Thoughts
- **Duration**: 22 minutes
- **Confidence Achieved**: 85%
- **Key Findings**: JWT with JWKS rotation emerged as optimal
- **Next Pattern Recommendation**: AR to validate before claiming >90%
- **Promise Status**: NOT MET (85% < 90%)

#### Iteration 3 (AR)
- **Pattern**: Adversarial Reasoning
- **Duration**: 15 minutes
- **Confidence Achieved**: 92%
- **Key Findings**: 2 critical attacks mitigated, residual risk acceptable
- **Promise Status**: MET (92% > 90%)

### Current State
- **Active Iteration**: 3 (complete)
- **Total Duration**: 55 minutes
- **Final Confidence**: 92%
- **Exit Approved**: YES

---

When to Use Ralph-Loop Integration

Use ralph-loop when:

• High confidence threshold required (>90%)
• Complex multi-pattern orchestration needed
• Self-correcting iteration is valuable
• Long-running analysis benefits from checkpointed persistence
• Problem may require multiple reasoning pattern switches
• You cannot afford premature conclusion

Do not use ralph-loop when:

• Single-pattern analysis is sufficient
• Time pressure requires rapid decision (use RTR instead)
• Problem is well-understood with clear solution
• Iteration overhead exceeds benefit
• Confidence threshold is low (<80%)

Decision Matrix:

Scenario	Use Ralph?	Rationale
Security architecture requiring >90% validation	Yes	High stakes, needs iterative AR passes
Quick debugging with known patterns	No	Overhead exceeds benefit
Novel problem with unknown solution space	Yes	May need multiple BoT iterations
Production incident requiring immediate action	No	Use RTR, ralph adds latency
Complex trade-off requiring stakeholder buy-in	Yes	DR + NDF may need multiple iterations

---

Iteration Safeguards

Hard Limits

Ralph-loop MUST enforce these limits to prevent runaway iterations:

• MAX_ITERATIONS: 5 (default)
• MAX_TOKENS_PER_ITERATION: 50,000
• MAX_TOTAL_TIME: 30 minutes
• CONFIDENCE_PLATEAU_THRESHOLD: 3 iterations with <2% improvement → stop

Stop Conditions (ANY triggers exit)

1. Confidence >= target (success)
2. MAX_ITERATIONS reached (bounded failure)
3. Confidence plateau detected (diminishing returns)
4. Time limit exceeded (timeout)
5. User interrupt (manual stop)
6. Error in pattern execution (fail-safe)

## Stop Condition Evaluation Order

1. Check for errors/interrupts (fail-safe, highest priority)
2. Check confidence >= target (success condition)
3. Check iteration count >= MAX_ITERATIONS
4. Check time elapsed >= MAX_TOTAL_TIME
5. Check plateau detection (last 3 iterations)

If ANY condition triggers → EXIT immediately with status report

Safeguard Configuration

{
  "iteration_safeguards": {
    "max_iterations": 5,
    "max_tokens_per_iteration": 50000,
    "max_total_time_minutes": 30,
    "plateau_detection": {
      "window_size": 3,
      "min_improvement_percent": 2
    },
    "exit_on_error": true,
    "allow_user_override": true
  }
}

---

Iteration Log Template

Track all iterations systematically:

Iteration	Pattern	Confidence	Delta	Time	Decision
1	[pattern]	[X]%	-	[Xm]	continue/stop
2	[pattern]	[Y]%	+Z%	[Xm]	continue/stop
...

Plateau Detection

Rule: If iterations 3, 4, 5 all show delta < 2%, STOP.

## Plateau Detection Example

| Iteration | Confidence | Delta | Plateau Count |
|-----------|------------|-------|---------------|
| 1 | 72% | - | 0 |
| 2 | 78% | +6% | 0 |
| 3 | 79% | +1% | 1 (< 2%) |
| 4 | 80% | +1% | 2 (< 2%) |
| 5 | 80.5% | +0.5% | 3 (< 2%) → STOP |

**Decision**: Plateau detected at iteration 5. Further iterations unlikely
to reach 90% target. Exit with 80.5% confidence and document gap.

Iteration Log Example

## Ralph-Loop Iteration Log: auth-system-design

| Iter | Pattern | Confidence | Delta | Time | Cumulative | Decision |
|------|---------|------------|-------|------|------------|----------|
| 1 | BoT | 65% | - | 12m | 12m | continue |
| 2 | ToT | 78% | +13% | 15m | 27m | continue |
| 3 | AR | 85% | +7% | 10m | 37m | STOP (time limit approaching) |

**Exit Reason**: MAX_TOTAL_TIME approaching (37m/30m - override allowed)
**Final Confidence**: 85%
**Gap to Target**: 5% (target was 90%)
**Recommendation**: Document remaining uncertainty, proceed with caveats

---

Pattern Switching During Iteration

When to Re-evaluate Pattern Selection

If after iteration N:

• Confidence stuck → Re-score IR-v2 dimensions
• New information → May change optimal pattern
• Different pattern scores higher → SWITCH (with handover)

Pattern Switch Decision Flow

After Iteration N:
├─ Confidence increased significantly (>5%)?
│   └─ YES → Continue with current pattern
│   └─ NO  → Re-score IR-v2 dimensions
│
├─ New pattern scores higher?
│   └─ YES → Initiate pattern switch with handover
│   └─ NO  → Continue current pattern (1 more iteration)
│
└─ 2 consecutive low-improvement iterations?
    └─ YES → FORCE re-evaluation or STOP
    └─ NO  → Continue

Pattern Switch Example

## Pattern Switch: ToT → HE

### Iteration History
| Iter | Pattern | Confidence | Delta |
|------|---------|------------|-------|
| 1 | ToT | 65% | - |
| 2 | ToT | 68% | +3% (low) |

### Re-evaluation Trigger
- Delta < 5% for 2 iterations
- Re-scoring IR-v2 dimensions with new information

### IR-v2 Re-scoring
**New Information**: Error logs reveal intermittent pattern
**Original Scores**: ToT (4.2), HE (3.8)
**Updated Scores**: ToT (3.5), HE (4.6)

**Reason**: Problem is actually root cause diagnosis, not optimization

### Switch Decision
- **From**: ToT (optimization)
- **To**: HE (hypothesis elimination)
- **Handover**: ToT findings become HE initial hypotheses

### Handover Package
```markdown
## Handover: ToT → HE

### Findings from ToT (Iterations 1-2)
- Explored 8 optimization paths
- Best path: JWT rotation (68% confidence)
- Blocker: Intermittent failures not explained by any path

### Reframing for HE
- **Symptom**: Intermittent auth failures
- **Initial Hypotheses** (from ToT paths):
  - H1: Token expiry edge case
  - H2: Clock drift between services
  - H3: Race condition in refresh flow
  - H4: External IdP latency

Iteration 3: HE

Iter	Pattern	Confidence	Delta
3	HE	82%	+14%

Result: Pattern switch successful. HE identified clock drift (H2).

### Switch Safeguards

- **Max switches per session**: 2 (prevent pattern thrashing)
- **Handover required**: Cannot switch without documenting state
- **Cooldown**: Minimum 1 iteration before re-switching
- **User notification**: Pattern switch logged and visible

### Oscillation Detection

**Oscillation = switching back to a previously used pattern**

If Pattern A -> B -> A detected:
- STOP immediately
- Flag as "methodology conflict"
- Report both patterns' findings
- Escalate for human decision

**Prevention**: Track all patterns used in session. Block any switch to already-used pattern.

---

## Integration with IR-v2 Orchestration

### Ralph-Wrapped IR-v2 Session

```markdown
## Ralph-Loop Session: [Problem Name]

### Completion Promise
<promise>Recommendation ready at >90% confidence with all critical attacks mitigated</promise>

### IR-v2 Dimension Scores
| Dimension | Score |
|-----------|-------|
| Sequential Dependencies | 2 |
| Criteria Clarity | 4 |
| Solution Space Known | 2 |
| Single Answer Needed | 4 |
| Evidence Available | 3 |
| Opposing Valid Views | 3 |
| Problem Novelty | 4 |
| Robustness Required | 5 |
| Solution Exists | 1 |
| Time Pressure | 2 |
| Stakeholder Complexity | 3 |

### Initial Pattern Selection
**Primary**: BoT (4.35) - Unknown solution space needs exploration
**Secondary**: ToT (3.80) - Will optimize once space mapped
**Validation**: AR (3.90) - Required for >90% confidence claim

### Orchestration Plan

Ralph Loop Wrapper ├─ Iteration 1: BoT exploration → Target: Map solution space ├─ Iteration 2: ToT optimization → Target: Select optimal solution ├─ Iteration 3: AR validation → Target: >90% confidence └─ Exit: Recommendation ready at >90% confidence

---

## Ralph + Pattern Integration Examples

### Example 1: BoT → ToT → AR Chain

```markdown
## Problem: Design distributed caching strategy
## Promise: Architecture validated with >90% confidence

### Iteration 1: BoT Exploration
**Objective**: Map all viable caching approaches
**Entry Criteria**: Unknown solution space
**Exit Criteria**: 5+ viable approaches identified

**Execution**:
1. Generate 8-10 distinct caching approaches
2. Explore each with strengths/weaknesses analysis
3. Conservative pruning (keep >40%)
4. Rank by viability

**Results**:
- Approaches explored: 8
- Retained: 6 (above 40% confidence)
- Top 3: Write-through (72%), Eventual (68%), CRDT (65%)
- Confidence: 78%

**Promise Check**: NOT MET (78% < 90%)
**Next Iteration**: ToT to optimize top 3 approaches

---

### Iteration 2: ToT Optimization
**Objective**: Find optimal solution from BoT findings
**Entry Criteria**: 6 viable approaches from BoT
**Exit Criteria**: Single best solution with clear rationale

**Execution**:
1. Deep evaluation of top 3 approaches
2. 4-level tree exploration
3. Score against criteria: latency, consistency, cost, scalability
4. Select winning path

**Results**:
- Winning path: Eventual → CRDTs → OR-Set → Tombstone-compaction
- Final score: 91/100
- Confidence: 85%

**Promise Check**: NOT MET (85% < 90%)
**Next Iteration**: AR to validate before claiming >90%

---

### Iteration 3: AR Validation
**Objective**: Stress-test CRDT solution
**Entry Criteria**: CRDT solution from ToT
**Exit Criteria**: All critical attacks mitigated OR solution rejected

**Execution**:
1. STRIKE framework threat modeling
2. Attack generation: Consistency attacks, partition handling, merge conflicts
3. Edge case enumeration: Clock drift, tombstone overflow, convergence delay
4. Countermeasure design

**Results**:
- Critical attacks found: 2 (clock drift exploitation, merge storm)
- Mitigations designed: 2 (vector clocks, merge throttling)
- Residual risk: 8% (acceptable)
- Confidence: 92%

**Promise Check**: MET (92% > 90%)
**Exit Approved**: YES

---

### Final Synthesis
**Solution**: CRDT-based eventual consistency with OR-Set and tombstone compaction
**Confidence**: 92%
**Iterations**: 3 (BoT → ToT → AR)
**Total Duration**: 55 minutes
**Mitigations Required**: Vector clocks, merge throttling

Example 2: HE → SRC → AR Chain (Root Cause Analysis)

## Problem: Intermittent 500 errors in production
## Promise: Root cause identified with >85% confidence and reproduction steps

### Iteration 1: HE Investigation
**Objective**: Identify root cause from symptom
**Entry Criteria**: Symptom observed (500 errors)
**Exit Criteria**: Root cause hypothesis with >70% confidence

**Execution**:
1. Generate 12 hypotheses (HEDAM-H)
2. Design evidence hierarchy (HEDAM-E)
3. Systematic elimination (HEDAM-D)
4. Assertion testing (HEDAM-A)

**Results**:
- Started with: 12 hypotheses
- Eliminated: 11
- Remaining: H7 (External API timeout)
- Confidence: 75%

**Promise Check**: NOT MET (need reproduction steps)
**Next Iteration**: SRC to trace exact failure path

---

### Iteration 2: SRC Trace
**Objective**: Trace failure mechanism step by step
**Entry Criteria**: H7 (External API timeout) at 75%
**Exit Criteria**: Complete failure path with reproduction steps

**Execution**:
1. Start at symptom (500 response)
2. Trace back through code path
3. Self-reflect at each step
4. Backtrack if confidence drops below 60%

**Results**:
- Chain traced: Request → Gateway → PaymentService → ExternalAPI → Timeout → 500
- Backtracked once: Initially missed async retry logic
- Reproduction: PaymentService.processPayment() with >5s external latency
- Confidence: 82%

**Promise Check**: NOT MET (82% < 85%)
**Next Iteration**: AR to validate reproduction

---

### Iteration 3: AR Validation
**Objective**: Confirm reproduction and validate fix
**Entry Criteria**: Reproduction steps from SRC
**Exit Criteria**: Reproduction confirmed OR rejection

**Execution**:
1. Execute reproduction test
2. Verify 500 error occurs
3. Apply proposed fix (timeout reduction)
4. Verify fix works

**Results**:
- Reproduction: CONFIRMED (500 error with 6s mock latency)
- Fix applied: Timeout 30s → 5s
- Fix validation: 500 errors eliminated
- Confidence: 88%

**Promise Check**: MET (88% > 85% with reproduction confirmed)
**Exit Approved**: YES

---

### Final Synthesis
**Root Cause**: ExternalPaymentAPI latency spike causing request queue backup
**Confidence**: 88%
**Reproduction**: `curl -X POST /payment --mock-latency 6s` → 500 error
**Fix**: Reduce timeout from 30s to 5s, add circuit breaker
**Iterations**: 3 (HE → SRC → AR)

---

15-Minute Checkpoint Integration

Ralph naturally integrates with IR-v2's 15-minute checkpoint protocol:

## Checkpoint Protocol within Ralph Loop

### At Each 15-Minute Mark:
1. **Progress Check**
   - Has confidence increased since last checkpoint?
   - Am I making meaningful progress toward promise?

2. **Pattern Fit Check**
   - Am I fighting the current methodology?
   - Should I switch patterns for next iteration?

3. **State Persistence**
   - Update .claude/ralph-loop.local.md
   - Record confidence, findings, next steps

4. **Promise Re-evaluation**
   - Is the promise still appropriate?
   - Should threshold be adjusted? (requires user approval)

### Checkpoint Decision Matrix

| Confidence Trend | Pattern Fit | Action |
|------------------|-------------|--------|
| Increasing | Good | Continue current pattern |
| Flat | Good | Continue, but set switch trigger |
| Decreasing | Good | Investigate, may need more evidence |
| Increasing | Poor | Switch pattern next iteration |
| Flat | Poor | Switch pattern immediately |
| Decreasing | Poor | Switch pattern, reassess promise |

Checkpoint Template

## Checkpoint: [Timestamp]
**Iteration**: [N]
**Elapsed**: [X] minutes
**Pattern**: [Current pattern]

### Progress Assessment
- **Confidence Change**: [Start]% → [Current]%
- **Trend**: [Increasing/Flat/Decreasing]
- **Meaningful Progress**: [Yes/No]

### Pattern Fit Assessment
- **Fighting Methodology**: [Yes/No]
- **New Characteristics Discovered**: [List]
- **Pattern Still Optimal**: [Yes/No]

### State Update
- **Key Findings This Interval**: [Summary]
- **Evidence Gathered**: [List]
- **Branches Explored**: [Count]

### Decision
- **Action**: [Continue/Switch/Pause]
- **Next Pattern**: [If switching]
- **Rationale**: [Why]

### Promise Status
- **Current Confidence**: [X]%
- **Threshold**: [Y]%
- **Gap**: [Z]%
- **Estimated Iterations Remaining**: [N]

---

Completion Promise Templates

Standard Templates

## High-Confidence Recommendation
<promise>INTEGRATED REASONING COMPLETE: Recommendation ready at >90% confidence</promise>

## Root Cause Analysis
<promise>ROOT CAUSE IDENTIFIED: Confidence >85% with reproduction steps verified</promise>

## Security Validation
<promise>ARCHITECTURE VALIDATED: All critical attacks mitigated with <15% residual risk</promise>

## Trade-off Resolution
<promise>SYNTHESIS COMPLETE: Trade-offs resolved with stakeholder-acceptable solution</promise>

## Exploration Complete
<promise>SOLUTION SPACE MAPPED: 5+ viable options with clear trade-off analysis</promise>

## Implementation Ready
<promise>IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPLETE: Step-by-step instructions with rollback procedures</promise>

Compound Promises

For complex problems requiring multiple criteria:

## Multi-Criteria Promise
<promise>
ANALYSIS COMPLETE when ALL of:
- Solution confidence >90%
- Security validation passed (AR)
- Performance validated (<100ms p99)
- Cost within budget (+/-10%)
</promise>

Adaptive Promises

For problems where threshold may need adjustment:

## Adaptive Promise
<promise>
BEST EFFORT COMPLETE when ANY of:
- Confidence >90% (full success)
- Confidence >80% after 3 iterations (acceptable)
- Time budget exhausted with clear next steps documented
</promise>

---

Anti-Gaming Protections

Ralph's completion promise is designed to prevent premature exit. The system enforces:

1. Genuine Confidence Validation

## Confidence Validation Rules

- Confidence MUST be supported by evidence chain
- Self-declared confidence requires justification
- AR validation required for >90% claims
- Declining confidence across iterations flags concern

### Invalid Confidence Claims (Auto-Rejected):
- "90% confident" without AR validation pass
- Confidence increased without new evidence
- Confidence exceeds evidence strength

2. Promise Integrity Checks

## Promise Integrity

Before exit, verify:
- [ ] All promise criteria genuinely met (not just claimed)
- [ ] Evidence trail supports confidence level
- [ ] No unaddressed critical risks
- [ ] Synthesis reflects actual findings (not wishful thinking)

### Red Flags That Block Exit:
- Confidence claim contradicts evidence
- Critical attack identified but not mitigated
- Backtrack occurred without re-validation
- Time pressure causing premature conclusion

3. Iteration Minimum

## Minimum Iteration Rules

For >90% confidence claims:
- Minimum 2 iterations required
- At least one must be validation pattern (AR, HE confirmation)
- Cannot claim >90% on first pass

For >85% confidence claims:
- Minimum 1 full iteration required
- Evidence must support claim

Exception: RTR (Rapid Triage) explicitly bypasses for emergency decisions

---

State Recovery and Session Resume

Ralph's state file enables session recovery:

## Session Recovery Protocol

### If Session Interrupted:
1. Load .claude/ralph-loop.local.md
2. Identify last complete iteration
3. Resume from checkpoint state
4. Continue toward promise

### Recovery Template:
```markdown
## Session Resume: [Session ID]

### Recovery Context
- **Original Problem**: [Problem statement]
- **Promise**: [Completion promise]
- **Last Complete Iteration**: [N]
- **Confidence at Interrupt**: [X]%
- **Pattern at Interrupt**: [Pattern name]

### Resumption Plan
1. Load iteration [N] state from ralph-loop.local.md
2. Verify findings still valid
3. Continue with [Next pattern]
4. Target: [Promise]

---

Configuration

Ralph-Loop Settings

{
  "ralph_loop": {
    "enabled": true,
    "state_file": ".claude/ralph-loop.local.md",

    "iteration_safeguards": {
      "max_iterations": 5,
      "max_tokens_per_iteration": 50000,
      "max_total_time_minutes": 30,
      "plateau_detection": {
        "window_size": 3,
        "min_improvement_percent": 2
      },
      "exit_on_error": true,
      "allow_user_override": true
    },

    "pattern_switching": {
      "max_switches_per_session": 2,
      "require_handover": true,
      "min_iterations_before_reswitch": 1,
      "reeval_trigger_delta_percent": 5
    },

    "promise_validation": {
      "require_evidence_chain": true,
      "require_ar_for_90_plus": true,
      "min_iterations_for_high_confidence": 2
    },

    "checkpoint_integration": {
      "interval_minutes": 15,
      "auto_checkpoint": true,
      "persist_on_pattern_switch": true
    },

    "exit_controls": {
      "block_premature_exit": true,
      "require_promise_met": true,
      "allow_adaptive_threshold": true
    },

    "anti_gaming": {
      "confidence_justification_required": true,
      "flag_declining_confidence": true,
      "block_unsupported_claims": true
    }
  }
}

---

Quick Reference

When to Wrap in Ralph Loop

"I need >90% confidence before recommending"
  → Wrap in ralph-loop with AR validation iteration

"This is a complex problem that may need pattern switching"
  → Ralph-loop with IR-v2 orchestration

"I can't afford to miss anything in this analysis"
  → Ralph-loop with BoT + AR iterations

"Root cause must be confirmed before fix deployment"
  → Ralph-loop with HE + SRC + AR chain

"Trade-offs involve multiple stakeholders"
  → Ralph-loop with DR + NDF iterations

Ralph Loop vs Direct Execution

Scenario	Ralph Loop	Direct
High-stakes, need validation	Yes
Quick answer sufficient		Yes
May need pattern switching	Yes
Single pattern fits well		Yes
Long-running analysis	Yes
Time-boxed decision		Yes
Self-correction valuable	Yes
First attempt likely correct		Yes

Iteration Planning Guide

For >90% confidence:
  Iteration 1: Exploration (BoT) or Optimization (ToT)
  Iteration 2: Refinement (ToT) or Validation (AR)
  Iteration 3: Final Validation (AR)
  Typical: 3 iterations, 45-60 minutes

For >85% confidence:
  Iteration 1: Primary pattern
  Iteration 2: Validation (AR or HE confirmation)
  Typical: 2 iterations, 30-45 minutes

For exploration complete:
  Iteration 1: BoT exploration
  Iteration 2: BoT refinement (if needed)
  Typical: 1-2 iterations, 20-40 minutes

---

Summary

Ralph-Loop Integration provides:

1. Persistent Iteration: Stop hook blocks premature exit until promise met
2. State Persistence: .claude/ralph-loop.local.md maintains iteration context
3. Completion Promises: Clear exit criteria prevent gaming
4. IR-v2 Integration: Seamless pattern switching across iterations
5. Checkpoint Integration: 15-minute checkpoints within ralph iterations
6. Anti-Gaming Protection: Evidence-backed confidence validation
7. Iteration Safeguards: Hard limits prevent runaway loops (MAX_ITERATIONS=5, MAX_TIME=30m)
8. Plateau Detection: Auto-stop when 3 iterations show <2% improvement
9. Pattern Switching: Re-evaluate IR-v2 scores when stuck, switch with handover

Use ralph-loop when high confidence is required and iterative refinement adds value. The overhead of ralph is justified when:

• Stakes are high (>90% confidence needed)
• Problem complexity may require pattern switching
• Self-correction across iterations improves outcome
• Premature conclusion would be costly

Critical Safeguards (always enforced):

• Maximum 5 iterations (bounded failure)
• Maximum 30 minutes total time (timeout)
• Plateau detection after 3 low-improvement iterations (diminishing returns)
• Maximum 2 pattern switches per session (prevent thrashing)

Reference: See integrated-reasoning-v2/SKILL.md for pattern selection and reasoning-handover-protocol/SKILL.md for state management details.