Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/master/.github/prompts/corrective-action-loop.prompt.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcpWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/corrective-action-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/corrective-action-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/corrective-action-loop/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/corrective-action-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/corrective-action-loop.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00044 | $0.03796 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01518 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00759 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00380 |
Grade A, and why
corrective-action-loop scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 342 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🔁 Corrective-Action Loop Prompt
Use this prompt when a verified gap / anomaly / defect is discovered during any Verification & Validation (V&V) activity and must be cycled back through the lifecycle (requirements → architecture → design → implementation → integration → V&V) to ensure the fix is correctly applied, re‑integrated, and re‑verified without introducing regressions.
This workflow aligns with:
- IEEE 1012-2016 (Verification & Validation)
- ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 (Technical & Maintenance Processes)
- ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 (Requirements traceability)
- IEEE 1044 (Anomaly classification) (conceptual reference)
- Repository conventions (traceability IDs, lifecycle phases, reliability gates)
📤 EXPECTED OUTPUT
Produce a Corrective Action Package (CAP) markdown document with the following structure:
# Corrective Action Package (CAP)
ID: CAP-[YYYYMMDD]-[SEQ]
Anomaly ID(s): ANOM-[ID], DEF-[ID]
Date Opened: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Owner: [Name]
Integrity Level: [Level 1–4]
Status: {OPEN|IN_PROGRESS|AWAITING_REVERIFY|CLOSED}
## 1. Summary
- Detected In Phase: [06-integration / 07-verification-validation / etc.]
- Detection Activity / Test ID: [TEST-INT-APIAuthFlow]
- Defect Description (Concise):
- User Impact (If Released):
- Severity (FDSC Scale / Business Impact):
- Integrity Level Affected Components:
## 2. Objective Evidence of Failure
| Evidence Type | Reference | Notes |
|--------------|-----------|-------|
| Failing Test | TEST-INT-APIAuthFlow | Reproduces handshake mismatch |
| Log Extract | log-2025-11-08T12:45Z | 500 during token refresh |
| Screenshot (if UI) | evidence/img/auth-refresh.png | |
| Metrics Spike | METRIC-AUTH-ERROR-RATE | Error rate > gate |
## 3. Root Cause Analysis
- Originating Lifecycle Phase: [Design Definition / Requirements / Implementation]
- Fault Class (e.g., Interface mismatch, Timing, Logic, Data contract):
- Why Introduced? (5-Whys or causal chain)
- Why Not Detected Earlier? (Gap in test / review / spec)
- Contributing Conditions (environmental, concurrency, configuration):
## 4. Impact & Change Scope
| Dimension | Assessment |
|-----------|------------|
| Affected Components | [List modules / services] |
| Coupled Elements | [Interfaces / downstream consumers] |
| Requirements Impacted | REQ-F-021, REQ-NF-005 |
| Design Elements | DES-C-014 (AuthAdapter), DES-IF-007 |
| Architecture Views | Logical, Interface View (update needed?) |
| SFMEA Impact | FM-012 RPN re-evaluation required |
| Reliability Gates | Integration pass rate, MTBF trend unaffected / affected |
| Security / Safety | [If applicable] |
## 5. Change Plan
| Action ID | Type | Description | Owner | Phase Routed To | Preconditions |
|----------|------|-------------|-------|-----------------|---------------|
| ACT-01 | Requirement Update | Clarify token refresh timeout semantics | BA Lead | 02-requirements | Stakeholder approval |
| ACT-02 | Interface Adjustment | Align AuthService refresh contract | Dev Lead | 04-design | ACT-01 complete |
| ACT-03 | Code Fix | Implement adjusted retry / backoff | Dev Team | 05-implementation | ACT-02 merged |
| ACT-04 | Test Additions | Add failing test (system + unit) | QA | 06-integration | Code fix PR open |
## 6. Verification & Validation Iteration Strategy
- Task Iteration Policy Triggered? [Yes/No]
- Re-Verification Scope Determination Method: [Risk-based / Full Regression / Impact-based]
- Regression Test Set Selected: [List test IDs]
- Integrity Level Adjustment? [If Yes → justification]
## 7. Test Artifacts Added / Updated
| Test ID | Type | Purpose | New/Updated | Linked Requirement(s) |
|---------|------|---------|-------------|-----------------------|
| TEST-UNIT-AuthRefreshTimeout | Unit | Reproduce boundary condition | New | REQ-F-021 |
| TEST-INT-APIAuthFlow | Integration | Validate multi-step token renewal | Updated (added scenario) | REQ-F-021 |
| TEST-SYS-SessionResilience | System | Validate session persistence under failures | New | REQ-NF-005 |
## 8. Execution & Evidence
| Step | Description | Result | Evidence Ref |
|------|-------------|--------|--------------|
| 1 | Added failing unit test | FAIL (expected) | TEST-UNIT log |
| 2 | Implemented fix (PR 123) | Build PASS | CI-Run-456 |
| 3 | Unit + Integration Regression | PASS (98 tests) | CI-Run-457 |
| 4 | System Reliability Metrics | Stable (λ decreasing) | Metrics snapshot |
## 9. Traceability Updates
| Artifact Type | ID | Updated? | Link |
|--------------|----|----------|------|
| Requirement | REQ-F-021 | Yes | commit abc123 |
| Design | DES-IF-007 | Yes | ADR-023 |
| Code | src/auth/RefreshService.ts | Yes | PR 123 |
| Test | TEST-UNIT-AuthRefreshTimeout | New | /tests/unit/auth/... |
| SFMEA | FM-012 | RPN revised 180→120 | SFMEA-Auth.md |
## 10. Risk & Integrity Review
- Residual Risk Rating: [Low/Medium/High]
- SFMEA Adjusted? [Yes/No]
- CIL Item Created/Closed? [ID]
- New Hazards Introduced? [If yes → Hazard Log ref]
## 11. Closure Criteria
| Criterion | Status |
|-----------|--------|
| All planned actions complete | ✅ |
| All new/updated tests passing | ✅ |
| Regression suite green | ✅ |
| Traceability matrix updated | ✅ |
| Integrity level re-assessed | ✅ / N/A |
| Stakeholder sign-off obtained | Pending / ✅ |
## 12. Lessons Learned
- Prevention Opportunity:
- Missing Control Identified:
- Action to Institutionalize Learning (e.g., checklist update):
## 13. Sign-Off
| Role | Name | Date | Approval |
|------|------|------|----------|
| QA Lead | | | |
| Reliability Engineer | | | |
| Product Owner | | | |
| Security (if applicable) | | | |
Status: CLOSED / (auto-close after verification)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 342 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 6030ca04f913
corrective-action-loop is a command published in the GitHub repository zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 3,796 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-08.
Other commands, from other repositories
verify-bug
Post-merge UAT verification workflow. Walks JIRA reproduce steps, performs comparative audits (Before/After), attaches evidence to JIRA, and transitions status on PASS.
bugfix
Bug fix workflow: root cause analysis → user review → regression test + fix via TDD.
api-aqa-flow-execution-and-report-analysis
Phase 6 Execution & Report Analysis of api-aqa-flow (USER INTERACTION REQUIRED).
timeout-fix
A procedure for diagnosing and fixing tests that exceed their time limit by finding causes such as slow processing, hanging network calls, deadlocks, heavy setup, or leaked resources.
AGENTS
Run the current binary in a temporary test repository with a real PTY. Use tmux-cli when available, capture terminal output, and inspect -vv logs when behavior depends on timing or shell state. Avoid treating a piped command as proof of interactive behavior.
qa-changes
This skill should be used when the user asks to "QA a pull request", "test PR changes", "verify a PR works", "functionally test changes", or when an automated workflow triggers QA validation of code changes. Provides a structured methodology for setting up the environment, exercising changed behavior, and reporting…