ralph-loop

Files (1)

• SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

# RALPH Loop — Relentless Agentic Loop for Pursued Hardening

## Overview

RALPH is an iterative execution pattern where Claude pursues a goal through structured cycles, self-evaluating after each iteration and only stopping when it is genuinely confident the goal has been fully achieved — or when it has exhausted its configured iteration budget.

The loop is designed to prevent the common failure mode of "close enough" — where an agent produces a reasonable first attempt and stops, leaving gaps, inconsistencies, or missed requirements that a more careful pass would catch.

## The RALPH Cycle

Each iteration follows five phases:

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  R  →  A  →  L  →  P  →  H                     │
│  │     │     │     │     │                      │
│  │     │     │     │     └─ HARDEN              │
│  │     │     │     │        Decide: DONE or     │
│  │     │     │     │        loop back to R      │
│  │     │     │     │                            │
│  │     │     │     └─── PROBE                   │
│  │     │     │          Find specific gaps,     │
│  │     │     │          weaknesses, omissions   │
│  │     │     │                                  │
│  │     │     └───────── LOOK                    │
│  │     │                Examine output against  │
│  │     │                success criteria        │
│  │     │                                        │
│  │     └─────────────── ACT                     │
│  │                      Execute the plan,       │
│  │                      produce/refine output   │
│  │                                              │
│  └───────────────────── REASON                  │
│                         Decompose goal,         │
│                         define success criteria, │
│                         plan approach            │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

### Phase Details

#### R — REASON (Iteration 1: Goal Decomposition | Iteration 2+: Gap-Targeted Replanning)

**First iteration:**
- Parse the user's stated goal into a clear, unambiguous objective
- Decompose the goal into **success criteria** — concrete, evaluable conditions that must ALL be true for the goal to be considered achieved
- Each criterion should be specific enough to score on a 1–10 scale
- Plan the execution approach (tools, sequence, dependencies)
- Identify what "done" looks like — the acceptance threshold

**Subsequent iterations:**
- Review the gaps identified in the previous PROBE phase
- Replan specifically to address those gaps
- Do NOT restart from scratch — build on what's already been produced
- Prioritize the lowest-scoring criteria from the previous evaluation

**Output a structured plan:**
```
ITERATION [N] — REASON PHASE
=============================
Goal: [restated goal]
Success Criteria:
  1. [criterion] — [what "10/10" looks like]
  2. [criterion] — [what "10/10" looks like]
  ...
Plan: [what this iteration will do]
Focus Areas: [gaps from previous iteration, or "initial execution" if iteration 1]
```

#### A — ACT (Execute the Plan)

- Execute the plan from the REASON phase
- Use whatever tools are needed (file creation, web search, computation, etc.)
- Produce tangible output (files, content, data, analysis)
- On iteration 2+, modify/enhance existing output rather than regenerating from scratch (unless the PROBE phase determined a fundamental approach change is needed)

#### L — LOOK (Evaluate Against Criteria)

- Examine the output produced in the ACT phase
- Score EACH success criterion on a 1–10 scale
- Be brutally honest — this is where most agents fail by being too generous with themselves
- A score of 10 means "I would bet my reputation that this criterion is perfectly met"
- A score of 7-8 means "solid but there's room for improvement"
- A score below 7 means "this needs more work"

**Output a structured evaluation:**
```
ITERATION [N] — LOOK PHASE
============================
Criterion Scores:
  1. [criterion]: [score]/10 — [brief justification]
  2. [criterion]: [score]/10 — [brief justification]
  ...
Overall Confidence: [weighted average]/10
```

**Scoring calibration guide:**
- 10/10: Flawless. No possible improvement. Would pass expert review.
- 9/10: Excellent. Minor stylistic preferences might differ but substance is complete.
- 8/10: Very good. One small gap or imperfection that most people wouldn't notice.
- 7/10: Good. Meets the requirement but has a noticeable weakness.
- 6/10: Acceptable. Gets the job done but clearly could be better.
- 5/10 or below: Needs significant work. Do not consider stopping.

#### P — PROBE (Find the Gaps)

- For any criterion scoring below the completion threshold, identify EXACTLY what's missing or weak
- Be specific — "the introduction could be better" is useless; "the introduction doesn't establish the business context for the recommendation" is actionable
- Consider edge cases, unstated requirements, and quality dimensions the criteria might not fully capture
- Ask: "If I handed this to the user right now, what would they push back on?"

**Output a structured gap analysis:**
```
ITERATION [N] — PROBE PHASE
=============================
Gaps Found:
  - [Criterion N]: [specific, actionable description of what's missing]
  - [Criterion M]: [specific, actionable description of what's weak]
  ...

From zrosenfield/sharepoint-ai-skills, MIT.

More from zrosenfield/sharepoint-ai-skills