Iterative Optimization Loop

references/usage-guide.md covers hard metrics versus a judge, first-run defaults, and the expensive-benchmark shape (multiple required targets plus a measurement ladder).

Done when: a stopping criterion fired, every declared required target is met or another stop fired first, the final state is written and verified on disk, and the user has been given the post-completion options. If the run instead stopped at a gate it could not clear, say what blocked it.

Interaction Method

Use the platform's blocking question tool: AskUserQuestion in Claude Code (call ToolSearch with select:AskUserQuestion first if its schema isn't loaded), request_user_input in Codex, ask_question in Antigravity CLI (agy), ask_user in Pi (needs the pi-ask-user extension). Fall back to numbered options on the host's chat surface only when no blocking tool exists, or when the call errors. A pending schema load is not a reason to fall back. Never skip the question silently.

Artifact Root

Resolve <root> the first time you compose a path under it. Reading learnings under <root>/solutions/ counts as composing one. Give any subagent the resolved path, not the config.

Resolve the CE artifact root <root> before composing any artifact path.

• Read docs_root from <repo-root>/.compound-engineering/config.yaml only (<repo-root> = git rev-parse --show-toplevel). Do not read it from config.local.yaml. Unset -> <root> is docs, exactly as before.
• Validate a set value: a repo-relative directory whose real, symlink-resolved path stays inside the repo and is neither the repo root nor under .git/. Otherwise stop with an error naming docs_root and the value -- never fall back to docs.
• Use <root> as the sole artifact location: create it if absent, compose each path as <root>/<subdir> with this skill's own subdirectory, and never also read docs.

Persistence Discipline

The experiment log on disk is the single source of truth. The conversation is not durable storage. A result that exists only in the conversation is lost. So the write order never inverts: measure -> write -> verify -> then show the user. Showing the user a table that disk has not seen yet is a bug. During Phase 3, append each experiment's raw metrics as soon as they exist; update that entry's outcome, the best snapshot, and the hypothesis backlog in place at batch evaluation. Do not rewrite earlier metrics. Every phase boundary and every decision re-reads the log from disk.

Read references/persistence.md now for the six mandatory checkpoints, CP-0 through CP-5 — each a write followed by a read-back — plus the rules behind them, the file layout, and resume. The phases below mark where each checkpoint falls.

The phases

Four phases run in order. Each one names the reference it cannot start without. A fresh run skips none of them: a harder optimization spends longer in a phase, it does not run fewer phases.

A resume is not a fresh run. On a resume, re-enter Phase 0 only far enough to detect the run and to recover any result.yaml markers the log is missing. Then continue from the phase the log records: skip the work the log proves finished, and re-enter any gate it does not. A checkpoint proves the work that produced it, never a user decision — the log holds no record of approval, so a resume that has not seen the user approve presents the Phase 1 gate again.

Phase 0 — Setup. The input is a goal, or a path to a spec YAML. It comes from the user or from a calling skill. If neither supplied one, ask: "What would you like to optimize? Describe the goal, or provide a path to an optimization spec YAML file." Load or build the spec and save it (CP-0) — read references/spec.md. Then search prior learnings, detect run identity, and create the branch and scratch space. Read references/measurement.md for the rest of Phase 0 and Phase 1.

Phase 1 — Measurement scaffolding. Build or validate the harness, write the baseline (CP-1), probe parallelism, check the worktree budget. Two gates stop the run:

• Clean-tree gate. Do not continue while any file in scope.mutable or scope.immutable has uncommitted changes. The reference owns the check and what to ask for.
• User approval gate. Present what Phase 1 assembled; the reference lists what to include. If the primary type is judge and max_total_cost_usd is unset, say plainly that spend is uncapped. Offer proceed, fix issues, and adjust spec. Adjusting the spec is only available while the log holds nothing derived from it — no hypothesis backlog and no experiments — and it sends the run back through Phase 1 so the baseline matches the new spec. Once anything derived from the spec is on file, the spec is fixed for the run. Do not enter Phase 2 until the user explicitly approves. Then re-read the spec and baseline from disk.

Phase 2 — Hypothesis generation. Analyze the current approach, rank the hypotheses, record the backlog (CP-2). Read references/loop.md for this phase and Phase 3. One gate: dependency pre-approval. Collect every new dependency across all hypotheses and present the full list for bulk approval. A dependency the user does not approve stays in the backlog, is skipped in batch selection, and comes back at wrap-up.

Phase 3 — Optimization loop. Select a batch, dispatch experiments, persist each result as it lands (CP-3), evaluate with scripts/decide.mjs, update state and the digest (CP-4), then check whether to stop. Stop as soon as any one of seven criteria holds: every declared required target is met, max iterations, max hours, judge budget exhausted, plateau, a user interrupt, or no runnable hypothesis left. references/loop.md states each one exactly. Otherwise start the next batch.

Phase 4 — Wrap-up. Read references/wrap-up.md for the deferred hypotheses, the summary, what is preserved, cleanup, and the post-completion options to present. CP-5 marks the log final. Write it only after the user picks an option that does not return to Phase 3. Two options do return: Continue, and approving a deferred dependency.