gaasher

Use when a loop needs scholarly literature — paper discovery, novelty checks, full-text snippet search, citation-graph traversal, single-paper reads, or experimental-result extraction. A shared, stdlib-only CLI (`tools/lit_search.py`) over Semantic Scholar + arXiv (plus optional OpenAlex, Perplexity Sonar, bgpt.pro), all JSON. Not a loop itself: install it alongside the loops and let any of them call it instead of vendoring their own copy. Degrades to the caller's WebSearch/WebFetch.

Content & Marketing · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user has a coding prompt — a feature, bug fix, or refactor — and wants it implemented end to end by a self-checking software loop, not a single pass. It refines the prompt into an executable plan (running the plan-loop internally), then executes the plan task by task: an Engineer subagent implements each PR-sized task editing only source, a separate QA subagent authors the tests that prove the task's acceptance criteria (or grades quality only when tests already cover them), runs the task's tests plus the full accumulated regression suite, and grades the code against a strict conc

Testing & QA · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user has a coding or engineering prompt and wants it refined into a detailed, executable plan before any code is written — the planning stage of a prompt → plan → execute → debug pipeline. It decomposes the prompt from first principles (objective, end state, environment, building blocks, tools, packages), breaks the work into PR-sized tasks each tied to a component with its files, tests, and dependencies, orders them topologically, splits each into atomic subtasks, then a separate principal-engineer agent critiques the plan for alignment, coverage, sizing, and executability; it re

Testing & QA · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user wants to iteratively improve an artifact under a hard correctness bound while minimizing a measured cost — refactoring a code module to cut complexity while its test suite stays green, OR speeding up a SQL query while it returns the same rows. Each iteration applies one focused change, checks a correctness gate that must pass, measures a metric that must drop, and keeps the change only if both hold, else reverts; loops to a plateau or budget. Not for adding features, fixing bugs, or any change that is allowed to alter behaviour or results.

Testing & QA · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user has concrete failing cases in code or a guardrail/classifier/filter/prompt/API they own — a red-team failure catalogue OR a CI/CD test-failure report (failing pytest/JUnit tests) — and wants the target patched until those failures are closed without breaking what already works. It points straight at the failed cases (normalize any source with tools/ingest.py), fixes one root-cause class per iteration, and re-checks with tools/verify.py — oracle mode against a red-team oracle, or tests mode against the test suite — keeping a patch only if it closes a class while nothing that p

Testing & QA · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user wants to adversarially stress-test a guardrail, classifier, prompt, or API they own or are authorized to test, to surface the distinct ways it fails. Generates adversarial inputs, runs them through the target and a ground-truth oracle, logs every target-vs-oracle disagreement as a failure de-duplicated by technique class, and loops until rounds stop surfacing new classes. Produces a catalogue of distinct, reproducible failures — the attacker half of a find→fix setup. Not for patching the target, and not for attacking systems the user does not own or have permission to test.

Testing & QA · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user is planning a two-arm comparison (an A/B test, a simple RCT, a behavioral study, or a two-model/two-config evaluation) and needs to size it and preregister it before collecting data — finding the per-group sample size that hits target statistical power for the smallest effect worth detecting, auditing the design against a validity checklist, and locking it in a preregistration. Only for a single two-arm comparison with one primary outcome. Not for factorial, repeated-measures, clustered/multilevel, time-series, adaptive, or survival designs; not for analyzing data already col

Testing & QA · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user has a scientific draft (with its dataset, figures, and optional analysis code) and wants it iteratively revised until it clears a quality bar. Five specialist judges (figures, scientific content, style, formatting, code) critique the draft; a fresh, independent peer_reviewer grades it on those same axes (1-5 each → a percentage) with honesty guardrails; a scientific_writer revises prose, figures, and code — regenerating figures by running the user's plot command — until the peer-review score clears the threshold or the budget is hit. Not for writing a paper from a blank page,

Data & Analytics · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user has a research proposal (problem + proposed methodology + planned experiments) and wants it iteratively strengthened until it clears a passing grade. ScholarEval grades the proposal against the literature (Soundness + Contribution), a Judge scores that feedback 0-100 on a fixed rubric, and a Reviser rewrites the proposal to fix the worst points without diluting the research question; loops until the grade passes or the budget is hit. Not for generating a proposal from scratch, and not for running a literature survey on its own.

Other · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user wants an autonomous ML research loop that pressure-tests competing ideas before spending compute — several research subagents each propose one architecture change, a self-calibrating Judge critiques them against a rubric, the proposers refine, and the Judge picks the single change to run. The Judge learns to pick better over time by scoring its own predictions against realized metric deltas, recording predicted-vs-realized in a calibration ledger and refining its working rubric. The result is an experiment ledger where each iteration's change won a de-biased tournament. Not f

Data & Analytics · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user wants to generate and literature-vet a pool of novel, testable research hypotheses for a question or domain. A multi-agent loop: a Generator proposes candidate hypotheses, a LiteratureScout grounds each in real retrieved literature (already known? closest prior work? what gap does it fill?), and a Judge scores them against a fixed rubric and keeps the strong, non-duplicate ones; rounds repeat — mutating toward the open gaps — until fresh rounds stop adding keepers. Not for sharpening or decomposing a research question (no grounding/scoring there), and not for grading an exist

AI & Agents · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills

Use when the user has scientific data (or a prompt alluding to scientific data) and wants a publication-quality figure made from it. A generator drafts and renders a figure that lands a frozen communication goal; an adversarial critic critiques it hard and grades it 1-5 per axis against a fixed rubric (message, aesthetic, clarity, integrity, and a conditional domain-completeness axis), aggregates to 0-100, and decides pass; the generator revises against the critic's findings until the grade clears a threshold or the budget is hit. Both roles may consult the literature (Semantic Scholar + arXiv

Data & Analytics · gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills