6.1 KiB
Loop Engineering Meta-Prompt
Use this meta-prompt for every TAC Product Factory / Plan F3 plan that touches agents, deploy, RSI, or self-improvement.
Required loop sections
Every plan must explicitly map the work to four loops:
- Agent loop — what agent/tool loop runs until done.
- Verification loop — what deterministic checks, reviewers, receipts, or rubrics gate success.
- Event-driven loop — what webhook, cron, queue, file event, or dashboard trigger runs the work without manual prompting.
- Hill-climbing loop — what trace/evidence can safely modify prompts, skills, tools, or config later.
Required safety fields
Every plan/receipt must include:
- Canonical deploy route:
git-proxy:8099/deploy. - Legacy note:
deploy-webhook:8098is internal/stale for guarded product deploy. auto_patch_proven:falseunless a degraded-skill recovery receipt exists.rsi_canary_recovery_evidence:trueonly when linking the canary receipt.- Evidence receipt paths for any RSI/self-improvement claim.
Required validation
At minimum, plans must name the checks that prove:
- plan schema/sections validate;
- deploy route is signed-action-only;
- tests pass;
- claims do not exceed receipts.
Taste rule
Prefer the boring loop that compounds over the clever prompt that works once. If the plan needs a new framework, first prove a markdown file, JSON receipt, and pytest assertion cannot hold the invariant.
Agent harness note
A loop is not just repeated model calls. Every agent plan must name the harness around the model:
- context and working memory;
- durable semantic memory / RAG sources;
- episodic memory / traces from prior runs;
- tool allowlist and signed deploy boundaries;
- end-loop guardrails that define when to stop;
- tracing for retrievals, tool calls, latency, token use, and errors;
- evals/receipts that decide whether prompt or config changes can feed back into the next run.
LLMOps/hill-climbing only promotes a changed prompt, retrieval config, tool config, or model parameter when traces plus evals show the new loop is safer or better.
Reference: Sean's AI Stories, "You Can Learn AI Agent Harness & Loop Engineering In 19 Min" (YouTube GrNbuWWJYiI).
Open-source model portability note
A strong harness should make the task portable across model tiers, including open-source or lower-cost models. Plans must spell out enough context, phases, and quality gates that a non-frontier model can follow the work without relying on hidden taste.
For outbound/productized work, require:
- explicit prospect/input target;
- crawler or source gathering step;
- report generation step;
- cover letter or executive summary when the output is meant to sell or persuade;
- design/report review phase;
- quality gate checklist that loops back to the builder when review fails;
- model/cost notes when choosing GLM/open-source/local models over frontier models.
Reference: Jordan Urbs, "GLM 5.2 Proves Open Source AI Can Match Fable 5 (AI Harness Engineering)" (YouTube dJI2GRG1GEE).
Autonomous work agent note
For business adoption, distinguish two operating modes before designing the harness:
- Team manages agents — an agent factory or admin team creates, updates, and governs shared agents.
- Agents assist people — each human gets a personal work agent that learns their context, skills, preferences, and second-brain material.
Every autonomous work-agent plan must include:
- per-agent isolation boundary, preferably one container or equivalent sandbox per agent;
- credential separation: no raw secrets inside the agent environment;
- vault/proxy credential injection for only the requests the agent is allowed to make;
- explicit access policies for tools, files, APIs, and outbound network;
- skill/instruction iteration loop for tuning the agent's actual output;
- management surface for upgrading, maintaining, and revoking agents after deployment;
- second-brain/context source plan when personal-agent behavior depends on private knowledge.
Reference: Latent Space, "The Blueprint for Autonomous Work Agents" with Gavriel Cohen / NanoClaw (YouTube hLUGXO5DSpo).
External research anchors
Ground agent plans against external production guidance, not just video notes:
- NVIDIA Secure Agent Workspace: always-on agents need a managed workspace with credential proxy, enterprise tool access, governance, and runtime controls.
- Infisical Agent Vault: secrets stay in the vault and requests receive credentials through a proxy; agents must not hold raw secrets.
- Anthropic agent evals: judge trajectories and environment outcomes, not just final answers.
- OWASP AI Agent Security Cheat Sheet: treat prompt injection, memory poisoning, tool abuse, sandboxing, and access control as first-class risks.
These anchors support TAC's local rule: deploy remains signed-action-only through git-proxy:8099/deploy; do not reintroduce raw command deploy paths.
References: NVIDIA Secure Agent Workspace (docs.nvidia.com/enterprise-reference-architectures/secure-agent-workspace-reference-design), Infisical Agent Vault (infisical.com/blog/agent-vault-the-open-source-credential-proxy-and-vault-for-agents), Anthropic "Demystifying evals for AI agents" (anthropic.com/engineering/demystifying-evals-for-ai-agents), OWASP AI Agent Security Cheat Sheet (cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/AI_Agent_Security_Cheat_Sheet.html).
Model Workspace Protocol note
For sequential workflows with human review between stages, prefer folder-structured orchestration before multi-agent framework code. The Model Workspace Protocol pattern treats numbered folders as stages, markdown files as role/context carriers, and local scripts as the boring mechanical layer.
Use this when it fits:
00-intake/— raw request, sources, constraints.10-plan/— Plan F3 artifact and assumptions.20-build/— implementation notes and changed files.30-verify/— test output, verifier notes, receipts.40-ship/— signed deploy request, outcome, rollback notes.
Reference: arXiv 2603.16021, "Interpretable Context Methodology: Folder Structure as Agentic Architecture".