Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-extension --skill human-in-the-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-extensionWrote 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/skills/hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-extension/human-in-the-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-extension/human-in-the-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-extension/human-in-the-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/skills/hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-extension/human-in-the-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-extension/human-in-the-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 | $0.00412 | $0.03623 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00206 | $0.01811 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00082 | $0.00725 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00362 |
Grade A, and why
human-in-the-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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to human-in-the-loop — 3 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 393 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Pattern
Overview
The Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Pattern integrates human judgment, oversight, and approval into agent workflows at critical decision points. Rather than running fully autonomously, HITL agents pause at defined checkpoints — to confirm high-stakes actions, request clarification, seek approval, or collect feedback — before proceeding.
Core Principle: Autonomy is earned, not assumed — build human oversight into the design, not as an afterthought.
When This Skill Applies
Activate this pattern when:
- Agent actions are irreversible (sending emails, deleting data, financial transactions)
- High-risk decisions require human judgment (medical, legal, financial advice)
- Ambiguous instructions need human clarification before proceeding
- Regulatory or compliance requirements mandate human approval
- Agent confidence is below acceptable threshold for autonomous action
- Actions affect third parties who have not consented to fully automated interaction
- The agent encounters situations outside its training distribution
Rule of thumb: If you'd want a human to review the action before it happens, build in a HITL checkpoint.
HITL Spectrum
Fully Autonomous ←————————————————————→ Fully Manual
| | | |
Auto-run Approve Review Step-by-step
(no review) high-risk all steps approval
Choose the appropriate level based on:
- Risk: Higher risk → more human involvement
- Trust: Proven, well-tested agents can operate more autonomously
- Context: Production vs. development, internal vs. external-facing
- Reversibility: Irreversible actions need pre-approval
DEFINE → PLAN → ACTION Workflow
DEFINE
Map the human oversight requirements:
- Which actions are irreversible or high-risk?
- Which decision points require human judgment (not just execution)?
- What information does the human need to make an informed approval?
- What are the response time requirements? (Synchronous vs. async approval)
- What happens if the human is unavailable?
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 393 lines · 412 tokens per session scan A 012781ea2d3f
human-in-the-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-extension (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 412 tokens to every session and 3,623 once invoked, about $0.0021 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to human-in-the-loop, differing in 3 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
prompt engineering
Use this skill when asked to create, refine, analyze, or optimize prompts for Large Language Models (LLMs). This skill ensures adherence to prompt engineering best practices and enforces a rigorous design workflow.
redteam
Expertise in offensive security research, vulnerability analysis, CMS-focused application testing, and red team operations.
redteam-source-audit
Focused source-code security review workflow for web applications, CMS extensions, APIs, and supporting services.
redteam-cms
Focused methodology for authorized CMS fingerprinting, component inventory, misconfiguration review, and vulnerability validation.
redteam-exploit-validation
Focused workflow for validating exploitability safely and turning candidate issues into reproducible, bounded proof.
redteam-recon
Focused reconnaissance workflow for authorized security assessments, bug bounty triage, lab targets, and CTF infrastructure.