Loop engineering
A collection of agent skills for repository setup, multi-CLI agent workflows, and intelligent context loading.
npx -y skills add fxckcode/skills-kit --skill loop-engineeringAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Design and implement autonomous agent loops for multi-agent software development. Maker-checker split, nested SDD cycles, worktree isolation, verification layers, and iteration budgets. Use when building systems where AI agents collaborate autonomously on software projects.
The file declares its own license as Apache-2.0. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
3.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Loop Engineering — Multi-Agent Orchestration
"You shouldn't be prompting coding agents anymore. You should be designing loops that prompt your agents." — Peter Steinberger
What This Skill Owns
- Designing closed-loop autonomous agent pipelines with stopping conditions
- Implementing maker-checker splits (fresh context for verifiers)
- Nested SDD cycles within each agent loop
- Parallel workstream orchestration with worktree isolation
- Three-layer verification: intra-loop, integration, QA
- Iteration caps and token budgets
Core Primitives
Every production loop needs: Automations (scheduler), Worktrees (isolation), Skills (codified knowledge), Plugins (tool access), Sub-agents (maker-checker split), and State/Memory (external persistence).
Maker-Checker Split
The single highest-leverage structural decision:
MAKER (Agent A) CHECKER (Agent B)
───────────────── ──────────────────
Role: create, implement Role: destroy, verify
Bias: "my code works" Bias: "nothing works until proven"
Context: inherited Context: FRESH (reads from state only)
Critical rule: Checker MUST have fresh context. The agent that wrote the code is too lenient grading its own homework.
Verification — 3 Layers
- Intra-loop — Maker-checker per area (tests, spec compliance, design)
- Integration — Contract tests between areas (FE ↔ BE)
- QA — Original PRD use cases against integrated product
Verification is the reason you can walk away from a loop. Without it, the loop produces confident garbage.
Dark Factory Architecture — 5 Levels
N0: DECOMPOSE — PRD → UX/FE/BE specs + template injection
N1: BUILD — 3 parallel loops (UX, FE, BE) with maker-checker
Worktrees isolated per area, Promise.all for parallelism
N2: INTEGRATE — merge + contract tests
N3: QA — PRD use cases against integrated product
N4: DELIVER — GitHub repo + branch + PR
7-Dimension AI Code Review (Checker's Job)
| # | Dimension | What to Check |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Correctness | Output matches spec — all edge cases |
| 2 | Hallucination | Every import and type exists in installed packages |
| 3 | Security | Input validated, auth checked, no secrets hardcoded |
| 4 | Architecture Fit | Follows project conventions, not generic AI patterns |
| 5 | Performance | No N+1, no unnecessary nested loops |
| 6 | Error Handling | try/catch, loading/empty/error states in UI |
| 7 | Maintainability | Clear names, small functions, complex logic explained |
Pitfalls
- No iteration cap — always set maxIterations (default: 3)
- Checker inherits maker context — defeats the purpose
- No token budget — estimate before running: 4 agents × 3 iterations × 200K tokens = 2.4M
- Weak verification — "tests pass" is not enough; run the code, check edge cases
- Comprehension debt — the faster the loop ships code, the bigger the gap between what exists and what you understand