choose-loop-wakeup-interval
정보
이 스킬은 자율 루프 웨이크업을 스케줄링하기 위한 최적의 `delaySeconds` 값을 계산하며, 런타임 클램핑과 안티패턴 방지를 포함한 캐시 인식 3단계 전략을 구현합니다. 이는 개발자가 하트비트 간격, 폴링 튜닝 또는 잘못 설정된 루프를 수정할 때 적절한 간격을 선택하도록 안내합니다. `ScheduleWakeup` 도구나 `/loop` 명령어를 사용하여 루프를 설계할 때 효율적인 스케줄링과 원격 측정 준비 추론을 보장하기 위해 활용하세요.
빠른 설치
Claude Code
추천npx 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-intervalClaude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요
문서
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 저장소
연관 스킬
executing-plans
디자인executing-plans 스킬은 검토 체크포인트가 포함된 통제된 배치로 실행할 완전한 구현 계획이 있을 때 사용합니다. 이 스킬은 계획을 불러와 비판적으로 검토한 후, 소규모 배치(기본값 3개 작업)로 작업을 실행하면서 각 배치 사이에 진행 상황을 아키텍트 검토를 위해 보고합니다. 이를 통해 내재된 품질 관리 체크포인트를 갖춘 체계적인 구현이 보장됩니다.
requesting-code-review
디자인이 스킬은 코드 변경 사항을 요구 사항에 따라 분석하기 위해 코드 리뷰어 하위 에이전트를 호출합니다. 작업 완료 후, 주요 기능 구현 후, 또는 메인 브랜치에 병합하기 전에 사용해야 합니다. 이 리뷰는 현재 구현체와 원래 계획을 비교하여 문제를 조기에 발견하는 데 도움이 됩니다.
connect-mcp-server
디자인이 스킬은 개발자들이 HTTP, stdio 또는 SSE 전송 방식을 통해 MCP 서버를 Claude Code에 연결하는 포괄적인 가이드를 제공합니다. GitHub, Notion 및 사용자 정의 API와 같은 외부 서비스를 통합하기 위한 설치, 구성, 인증 및 보안을 다룹니다. MCP 통합 설정, 외부 도구 구성 또는 Claude의 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜 작업 시 활용하세요.
web-cli-teleport
디자인이 스킬은 작업 분석을 기반으로 개발자가 Claude Code 웹 인터페이스와 CLI 인터페이스 중 선택할 수 있도록 돕고, 두 환경 간 원활한 세션 텔레포트를 가능하게 합니다. 웹, CLI 또는 모바일 환경 전환 시 세션 상태와 컨텍스트를 관리하여 워크플로를 최적화합니다. 다양한 단계에서 서로 다른 도구가 필요한 복잡한 프로젝트에 사용하세요.
