Files
OpenFlare/.agents/skills/autoresearch/references/loop-protocol.md
T
2026-08-28 20:36:15 +08:00

194 lines
6.6 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Autonomous loop protocol
Detailed specification for each of the 8 phases. The SKILL.md contains the
summary version. Read this reference when you need precise guidance on edge
cases in any phase.
---
## Phase 1 — Review
**Purpose**: Build a complete, accurate picture of current state before
forming any hypothesis. Hypotheses formed without full context waste iterations.
**What to read**:
- Every file in Scope (not just the ones you last touched)
- `git log --oneline -20` — what has been attempted, in order
- `autoresearch-results.tsv` — the full record of what worked and failed
- `autoresearch-lessons.md` — accumulated patterns from prior runs
**What to extract**:
- Current metric trajectory (improving? plateauing? volatile?)
- Which change types produced the most gain per iteration
- Which change types consistently failed
- Which directions have not yet been explored
- Any patterns in crash causes
**Duration**: This phase should take as long as needed to form a genuinely
informed hypothesis. Rushing Phase 1 leads to repeated failures.
---
## Phase 2 — Ideate
**Purpose**: Select ONE hypothesis that has the highest expected gain given
what is known.
**Hypothesis selection criteria** (in order of priority):
1. Builds directly on a proven pattern from the lessons file
2. Explores a direction adjacent to a near-miss (something that almost worked)
3. Combines two near-miss approaches that individually failed
4. Tries the opposite of what consistently failed
5. Applies an externally validated technique (from `WebSearch` research)
6. Tries something entirely untested
**What makes a good hypothesis**:
- Specific: "lazy-load the user avatar component" not "improve performance"
- Testable: produces a measurable delta in the Verify command
- Atomic: one thing changes, one thing is measured
- Explainable in one sentence before you make the change
**What makes a bad hypothesis**:
- Vague: "refactor for clarity"
- Multi-part: "update the API, add caching, and fix the tests"
- Untestable by the Verify command
- Identical to something tried in the last 3 iterations
---
## Phase 3 — Modify
**Purpose**: Implement the hypothesis as a single, clean, minimal change.
**Rules**:
- Touch only files in Scope
- Make the smallest change that tests the hypothesis
- If the change is getting large, stop and split it — make the first half now,
the second half in the next iteration
- Do not fix unrelated things you notice while editing
- Do not reformat code that is not part of the hypothesis
- Leave comments only if they directly explain the change
**Signs you are over-scoping**:
- You have edited more than 3 files
- The diff is more than ~50 lines
- You are explaining the change with "and also"
When in doubt, make a smaller change. Smaller changes fail faster and teach more.
---
## Phase 4 — Commit
**Purpose**: Create a clean rollback point before any verification risk.
**Command**:
```bash
git add -A && git commit -m "autoresearch iter N: <one-sentence description>"
```
**Commit message format**:
- Always prefix with `autoresearch iter N:`
- One sentence, present tense, describes the change not the goal
- Good: `autoresearch iter 14: lazy-load user avatar to reduce initial bundle`
- Bad: `autoresearch iter 14: improve performance`
**Why commit before verifying**: if the Verify command crashes, hangs, or
corrupts state, you can always `git revert HEAD --no-edit` and return to
a known-good state. If you verify before committing, a crash during
verification leaves you with uncommitted changes and an unknown baseline.
**Never skip this step**, even if the change feels obviously correct.
---
## Phase 5 — Verify
**Purpose**: Get a single numeric measurement of whether the hypothesis helped.
**Execution**:
1. Run the Verify command exactly as specified by the user
2. Extract the numeric metric value
3. Optionally supplement with `WebSearch` research (see
`references/web-research-patterns.md`)
4. Record the raw output for the log
**Handling slow Verify commands**:
If the Verify command takes more than 30 seconds, note this. After the run,
recommend the user find a faster proxy metric — slower verification means
fewer experiments per hour, which compounds negatively over a full night.
**Handling non-deterministic Verify commands**:
If the metric varies significantly between runs on identical code (>5%
variance), note this in the log. Run the Verify command twice and average.
Log both values. Recommend the user address flakiness before the next
overnight run.
---
## Phase 6 — Decide
**Purpose**: Make a clear, mechanical keep/revert decision. No deliberation.
**Decision table**:
| Condition | Action | Log status |
|---|---|---|
| Metric improved (beyond noise threshold) | Keep commit as-is | `keep` |
| Metric unchanged or regressed | `git revert HEAD --no-edit` | `discard` |
| Verify crashed with exit code ≠ 0 | Attempt fix (max 3 tries) then revert | `crash` |
| Verify hung for >60s | Kill process, revert | `crash` |
**Noise threshold**: for metrics with variance, an improvement smaller than
the variance is not a real improvement. If your metric normally varies ±2%,
an improvement of 0.5% is noise — treat it as unchanged and discard.
**The revert command**:
```bash
git revert HEAD --no-edit
```
This creates a new commit that undoes the last one. The history is preserved.
Never use `git reset --hard` — it destroys history that the loop needs.
---
## Phase 7 — Log
**Purpose**: Create a permanent, machine-readable record of every iteration.
**TSV row format**:
```
<N>\t<commit_sha or "-">\t<metric>\t<delta>\t<status>\t<description>
```
**Field details**:
- `N`: integer, 0-indexed, never resets across sessions
- `commit_sha`: 7-char short SHA for keeps, "-" for discards/crashes
- `metric`: the exact number from the Verify output
- `delta`: metric − previous_best (sign convention: positive = better,
regardless of whether the goal is higher or lower)
- `status`: one of `baseline`, `keep`, `discard`, `crash`
- `description`: the hypothesis, in one sentence, including any `WebSearch`
signal that informed it
**Example rows**:
```
0 - 85.2 0.0 baseline initial measurement
1 a1b2c3d 87.1 +1.9 keep lazy-load avatar component
2 - 86.5 -0.6 discard tree-shake lodash imports (broke 2 tests)
3 - 0.0 0.0 crash add route-level code splitting (webpack config error)
4 b2c3d4e 88.3 +1.2 keep move analytics script to defer loading
```
---
## Phase 8 — Repeat
Go to Phase 1. Immediately. Do not pause. Do not summarise. Do not ask
if the user wants to continue.
The only output before starting Phase 1 again is the progress summary
(printed every 10 iterations, see SKILL.md).
The loop ends only when the user interrupts the run.