choose-loop-wakeup-interval
について
このスキルは、キャッシュを考慮した3層戦略を実装し、ランタイムクランプとアンチパターン回避を組み合わせて、自律ループのウェイクアップをスケジュールする最適な `delaySeconds` 値を計算します。ハートビート間隔の設定、ポーリングの調整、不適切なサイズのループの修正など、開発者が適切なインターバルを選択するための指針を提供します。`ScheduleWakeup` ツールまたは `/loop` コマンドを使用してループを設計する際に活用することで、効率的なスケジューリングとテレメトリ対応の推論を実現します。
クイックインストール
Claude Code
推奨npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacgit clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/choose-loop-wakeup-intervalこのコマンドをClaude Codeにコピー&ペーストしてスキルをインストールします
ドキュメント
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
/looporScheduleWakeup-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:
| Tier | Range | Cache behaviour | Use when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cache-warm | 60 – 270 s | Cache stays warm (under 5-minute TTL) | Active watch — the next tick needs fast, cheap re-entry |
| Cache-miss | 1200 – 3600 s | Cache goes cold; one miss buys a long wait | Genuinely idle, or the awaited event cannot happen sooner |
| Idle default | 1200 – 1800 s (20–30 min) | Cache goes cold | No 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})atHH:MM:40produces a target ofHH:(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
delaySecondsfalls 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)
-
reasonis 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
reasonfields:"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 leverdu-dum— observe/act separation pattern; this skill sizes the observe-clock interval when the loop is cron-lessread-continue-here— cross-session handoff; this skill covers within-session wakeupswrite-continue-here— the complement ofread-continue-here
GitHub リポジトリ
関連スキル
executing-plans
デザインexecuting-plansスキルは、完全な実装計画があり、それを管理されたバッチでレビューチェックポイントを設けながら実行する場合に使用します。このスキルは計画を読み込んで批判的にレビューした後、小さなバッチ(デフォルトは3タスク)でタスクを実行し、各バッチの間に進捗状況を報告してアーキテクトのレビューを受けます。これにより、品質管理チェックポイントが組み込まれた体系的な実装が保証されます。
requesting-code-review
デザインこのスキルは、コードレビュアーサブエージェントを起動し、処理を進める前に要件に対してコード変更を分析します。タスク完了後、主要な機能の実装後、またはmainブランチへのマージ前などに使用すべきです。このレビューは、現在の実装と元の計画を比較することで、問題を早期に発見するのに役立ちます。
connect-mcp-server
デザインこのスキルは、開発者がHTTP、stdio、またはSSEトランスポートを使用してMCPサーバーをClaude Codeに接続するための包括的なガイドを提供します。GitHub、Notion、カスタムAPIなどの外部サービスを統合するためのインストール、設定、認証、セキュリティについて解説しています。MCP統合のセットアップ、外部ツールの設定、またはClaudeのModel Context Protocolを扱う際にご利用ください。
web-cli-teleport
デザインこのスキルは、タスク分析に基づいて開発者がClaude Code WebとCLIインターフェースの選択を支援し、これらの環境間でのシームレスなセッションテレポーテーションを可能にします。Web、CLI、モバイル環境を切り替える際のセッション状態とコンテキストを管理することで、ワークフローを最適化します。様々な段階で異なるツールを必要とする複雑なプロジェクトにご活用ください。
