Zurück zu Fähigkeiten

choose-loop-wakeup-interval

pjt222
Aktualisiert 2 days ago
7 Ansichten
17
2
17
Auf GitHub ansehen
Designdesign

Über

Diese Fähigkeit berechnet einen optimalen `delaySeconds`-Wert für die Planung autonomer Loop-Weckvorgänge und implementiert eine cache-bewusste Drei-Stufen-Strategie mit Laufzeitbegrenzung und Vermeidung von Anti-Patterns. Sie unterstützt Entwickler bei der Auswahl von Intervallen für Herzschlag-Kadenzen, Polling-Optimierung oder der Korrektur falsch dimensionierter Loops. Verwenden Sie sie beim Entwerfen von Loops mit dem `ScheduleWakeup`-Tool oder dem `/loop`-Befehl, um eine effiziente Planung und telemetriefertige Begründung sicherzustellen.

Schnellinstallation

Claude Code

Empfohlen
Primär
npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code
Plugin-BefehlAlternativ
/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Git CloneAlternativ
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/choose-loop-wakeup-interval

Kopieren Sie diesen Befehl und fügen Sie ihn in Claude Code ein, um diese Fähigkeit zu installieren

Dokumentation

Choose Loop Wakeup Interval

Pick a delaySeconds value for ScheduleWakeup that respects the prompt cache's 5-minute TTL, the scheduler's whole-minute granularity, and the [60, 3600] runtime clamp. The decision is structurally non-trivial: the common instinct "wait about 5 minutes" lands in the worst-of-both zone — pay the cache miss without amortizing the wait.

The reasoning travels with the ScheduleWakeup tool description at tool-call time, but by then the loop is already being scheduled. This skill hoists that reasoning to planning time, where it belongs.

When to Use

  • Designing an autonomous /loop or ScheduleWakeup-driven continuation and picking the per-tick delay
  • Planning a heartbeat cadence for a long-running agent that will poll, watch, or iterate
  • Tuning polling cadence against cost or cache-warmth pressure
  • Post-hoc reviewing loop costs and discovering the interval was mis-sized
  • Writing a guide, runbook, or worked example that involves picking delaySeconds

Inputs

  • Required: What the loop is waiting for (a specific event, a state transition, an idle tick, a periodic check)
  • Required: Whether the reader of this tick will need fresh context (cache-warm) or can tolerate a cold re-read (cache-miss acceptable)
  • Optional: Any known lower bound on when the awaited event could possibly occur (e.g. "the build takes at least 4 minutes")
  • Optional: A cost ceiling on the total loop (number of ticks × per-tick cost)

Procedure

Step 1: Classify the Wait

Decide which tier the wait belongs to:

  • Active watch (cache-warm): something is expected to change within the next 5 minutes — a build nearing completion, a state transition being polled, a process that was kicked off
  • Cache-miss wait: nothing worth checking sooner than 5 minutes from now; the context cache will go cold and that is acceptable
  • Idle: no specific signal to watch; the loop is checking in because it might find something, not because it will

Got: A clear classification: active-watch, cache-miss, or idle.

If fail: If the wait cannot be classified — if there is no honest answer to "what am I waiting for?" — the loop probably should not exist. Skip to Step 5 and consider not scheduling a wakeup at all.

Step 2: Apply the Three-Tier Decision

Pick a delaySeconds based on the classification:

TierRangeCache behaviourUse when
Cache-warm60 – 270 sCache stays warm (under 5-minute TTL)Active watch — the next tick needs fast, cheap re-entry
Cache-miss1200 – 3600 sCache goes cold; one miss buys a long waitGenuinely idle, or the awaited event cannot happen sooner
Idle default1200 – 1800 s (20–30 min)Cache goes coldNo specific signal; periodic check with user able to interrupt

Do not pick 300 s. It is the worst-of-both interval: the cache misses, but the wait is too short to amortize the miss. If you find yourself reaching for "about 5 minutes," drop to 270 s (stay warm) or commit to 1200 s+ (amortize the miss).

Got: A specific delaySeconds value chosen from one of the three tiers, not a round-number-minute value picked out of habit.

If fail: If the choice keeps landing on 300 s, the underlying question is usually "should this loop exist at this cadence at all?" — re-examine Step 1.

Step 3: Size for the Minute Boundary

The scheduler fires on whole-minute boundaries. A delaySeconds of N produces an actual delay of N to N + 60 s, depending on what second of the minute you call the tool.

Worked example:

Calling ScheduleWakeup({delaySeconds: 90}) at HH:MM:40 produces a target of HH:(MM+2):00 — i.e. an actual wait of 140 s, not 90 s.

Consequence: sub-minute intent is meaningless. Treat the value you pass as a floor, not a precise schedule. If a minute of skew matters, your loop cadence is too tight for this mechanism.

Got: You have accepted that the actual wait will be up to 60 s longer than the requested delaySeconds. For cache-warm ticks this matters — 270 s can become ~330 s in practice, tipping into cache-miss territory.

If fail: If near-the-ceiling values (e.g. 265 s when targeting cache-warmth) are common, pad downward — use 240 s instead of 270 s to preserve the cache-warm guarantee even under worst-case minute-boundary skew.

Step 4: Respect the Clamp

The runtime clamps delaySeconds to [60, 3600] — values outside that range are silently adjusted. Telemetry distinguishes what the model asked for (chosen_delay_seconds) from what actually scheduled (clamped_delay_seconds) and sets was_clamped: true on any mismatch.

Plan against the clamped value, not the requested one:

  • Request below 60 → actual wait is 60 s plus minute-boundary skew (up to 120 s in practice)
  • Request above 3600 → actual wait is 3600 s (1 hour)
  • No runtime extends the ceiling; multi-hour waits require multiple ticks

Got: Your chosen value falls inside [60, 3600], or you have deliberately accepted the clamped behaviour.

If fail: If the need is genuinely multi-hour (e.g. "wake me in 4 hours"), chain wakeups — schedule a 3600 s tick that itself reschedules — or use a cron-based loop (CronCreate with kind: "loop") instead.

Step 5: Write a Specific reason

The reason field is telemetry, user-visible status, and prompt-cache warmth reasoning in one line. It is truncated to 200 chars. Make it specific.

  • Good: checking long bun build, polling for EC2 instance running-state, idle heartbeat — watching the feed
  • Bad: waiting, loop, next tick, continuing

The reader of this field is a user trying to understand what the loop is doing without having to predict your cadence in advance. Write for them.

Got: A concrete, one-phrase reason that would make sense to a user glancing at status.

If fail: If no specific reason can be given, revisit whether the loop should exist (Step 1 and Step 6).

Step 6: Recognize the Don't-Loop Case

Not every "come back later" impulse warrants a scheduled wakeup. Do NOT schedule a tick when:

  • The user is actively watching — their input is the right trigger, not a timer
  • There is no convergence criterion — the loop has no definition of "done"
  • The task is interactive (asks the user questions between ticks)
  • The cadence needed is shorter than the clamp floor (60 s) — polling that tight belongs to an event-driven mechanism, not a loop

Got: A conscious choice between scheduling a wakeup and not looping at all. "Because I could" is not a reason to loop.

If fail: If you keep scheduling wakeups that the user interrupts before they fire, the pattern is wrong — not the interval.

Validation

  • The wait was classified as active-watch, cache-miss, or idle (one of three)
  • The chosen delaySeconds falls in one of the three tier ranges (60–270, 1200–3600, or 1200–1800 for idle)
  • The value is not 300 (worst-of-both)
  • The value is inside [60, 3600] or the clamped behaviour is explicitly accepted
  • Minute-boundary skew has been accounted for (treat the value as a floor)
  • reason is concrete and under 200 chars
  • The don't-loop check was performed — the wakeup is warranted

Pitfalls

  • Round-minute default (300 s): The single most common mistake. "About 5 minutes" feels natural and is exactly wrong. Drop to 270 s or commit to 1200 s+.
  • Ignoring minute-boundary skew: Requesting 60 s near the end of a minute can produce ~120 s of actual delay. For cache-warm ticks, this can push the tick past the 5-minute TTL unexpectedly.
  • Chasing sub-minute precision: The scheduler has minute granularity. Asking for 85 s vs. 90 s vs. 95 s is noise — pick a value and move on.
  • Opaque reason fields: "waiting" tells the user nothing and makes telemetry less useful. Write the reason as if the user will read it on a status line.
  • Using this skill to justify an unnecessary loop: If the honest answer to "what am I watching for?" is vague, no interval choice will help — the loop should not exist.
  • Hand-clamping in the prompt: Do not clamp in the model's reasoning ("I'll cap at 3600 to be safe"). The runtime clamps. Let it.
  • Forgetting the 7-day age-out: A dynamic loop is reaped after 7 days by default (user-configurable up to 30 days). Long-running loops should be designed to end well before that ceiling, not to race against it.

Examples

Example 1 — Cache-warm active watch

A bun build was kicked off; the agent wants to check in quickly so the cache is still warm when results arrive.

  • Classification: active watch (Step 1)
  • Tier: cache-warm (Step 2), pick 240 s
  • Minute boundary (Step 3): worst-case actual wait ~300 s — still under the 5-minute TTL with the 60 s buffer
  • Reason (Step 5): checking long bun build

Example 2 — Idle heartbeat

An autonomous agent watches a low-volume feed once an hour for anything worth acting on.

  • Classification: idle (Step 1)
  • Tier: idle default (Step 2), pick 1800 s (30 min)
  • Minute boundary (Step 3): irrelevant — 60 s of skew is negligible at this cadence
  • Reason (Step 5): idle heartbeat — watching the feed

Example 3 — The anti-pattern

An agent wants to "wait 5 minutes" while a remote API retries. The request is 300 s.

  • Problem: the cache goes cold at 5 minutes, so 300 s pays the miss — but 300 s is too short to amortize the miss
  • Fix: either drop to 270 s (stay warm) or commit to 1500 s (amortize the miss). Do not pick 300.

Related Skills

  • manage-token-budget — cost ceilings for long-lived agent loops; cache-aware sizing is one lever
  • du-dum — observe/act separation pattern; this skill sizes the observe-clock interval when the loop is cron-less
  • read-continue-here — cross-session handoff; this skill covers within-session wakeups
  • write-continue-here — the complement of read-continue-here
<!-- Keep under 500 lines. Current: ~200 lines. -->

GitHub Repository

pjt222/agent-almanac
Pfad: i18n/caveman-lite/skills/choose-loop-wakeup-interval
0
agentsagentskillsai-assisted-developmentclaude-codeskillsteams

Verwandte Skills

executing-plans

Design

Verwenden Sie die Fähigkeit "executing-plans", wenn Sie einen vollständigen Implementierungsplan zur Ausführung in kontrollierten Batches mit Überprüfungspunkten vorliegen haben. Sie lädt den Plan und überprüft ihn kritisch, führt dann Aufgaben in kleinen Batches (standardmäßig 3 Aufgaben) aus und meldet den Fortschritt zwischen jedem Batch zur Überprüfung durch den Architekten. Dies gewährleistet eine systematische Implementierung mit integrierten Qualitätskontrollpunkten.

Skill ansehen

requesting-code-review

Design

Diese Fähigkeit sendet einen Unteragenten für Code-Review, um Codeänderungen anhand der Anforderungen zu analysieren, bevor fortgefahren wird. Sie sollte nach dem Abschließen von Aufgaben, der Implementierung größerer Funktionen oder vor dem Zusammenführen in den Hauptzweig verwendet werden. Die Überprüfung hilft dabei, Probleme frühzeitig zu erkennen, indem die aktuelle Implementierung mit dem ursprünglichen Plan verglichen wird.

Skill ansehen

connect-mcp-server

Design

Diese Fähigkeit bietet Entwicklern eine umfassende Anleitung, um MCP-Server über HTTP-, stdio- oder SSE-Transports mit Claude Code zu verbinden. Sie behandelt Installation, Konfiguration, Authentifizierung und Sicherheit für die Integration externer Dienste wie GitHub, Notion und benutzerdefinierter APIs. Nutzen Sie sie beim Einrichten von MCP-Integrationen, bei der Konfiguration externer Tools oder bei der Arbeit mit Claude's Model Context Protocol.

Skill ansehen

web-cli-teleport

Design

Diese Fähigkeit unterstützt Entwickler bei der Wahl zwischen Claude Code Web- und CLI-Schnittstellen basierend auf Aufgabenanalysen und ermöglicht nahtloses Session-Teleporting zwischen diesen Umgebungen. Sie optimiert den Workflow, indem sie den Sitzungsstatus und Kontext beim Wechsel zwischen Web, CLI oder Mobilgeräten verwaltet. Nutzen Sie sie für komplexe Projekte, die in verschiedenen Phasen unterschiedliche Werkzeuge erfordern.

Skill ansehen