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 vigneshbarani24/sap-superpowers --skill self-correcting-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vigneshbarani24/sap-superpowersWrote 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/vigneshbarani24/sap-superpowers/self-correcting-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vigneshbarani24/sap-superpowers/self-correcting-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vigneshbarani24/sap-superpowers/self-correcting-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/vigneshbarani24/sap-superpowers/self-correcting-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vigneshbarani24/sap-superpowers/self-correcting-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 | $0.00057 | $0.01488 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00744 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00298 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00149 |
Grade A, and why
self-correcting-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 7d 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Self-Correcting Loop
This skill runs an iterative fix → verify → fix cycle on ABAP code until all quality gates pass. It does not stop after one fix attempt — it loops until the code is syntax-clean, ATC-clean, test-passing, and successfully activated.
Iron Laws
-
NEVER DECLARE SUCCESS AFTER ONE FIX. A fix that resolves one error often introduces another. Always re-run the full verification after every fix. The loop is: fix → full check → assess → repeat.
-
NEVER FIX MORE THAN ONE ISSUE AT A TIME. Batch fixes create cascading failures that are impossible to debug. Fix the first error, verify, then fix the next. Surgical precision, not shotgun patches.
-
ALWAYS TRACK FIX HISTORY. Every fix attempt is logged with: what was wrong, what was changed, and whether the check passed. This prevents circular fixes (fixing A breaks B, fixing B breaks A).
-
STOP AFTER 10 ITERATIONS. If 10 fix cycles cannot resolve the issue, the problem is architectural, not syntactical. Escalate to the user with the fix history — do not loop forever.
-
NEVER WEAKEN THE CHECK TO PASS THE GATE. If ATC flags a finding, fix the code — do not suppress the finding. If a test fails, fix the logic — do not delete the test. Weakening gates is not fixing.
Rationalization Table
| Agent Will Try To... | Why It Seems Reasonable | Why It Fails | Counter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fix multiple errors at once | "I can see three errors, let me fix them all" | Multi-fix creates merge conflicts in your own reasoning. One change triggers side effects in others. | Iron Law 2. One fix per iteration. |
| Suppress ATC findings instead of fixing | "This is a false positive, I'll add a pragma" | If it were a false positive, explain why. Most "false positives" are real findings the developer doesn't want to fix. | Iron Law 5. Fix the code. |
| Skip re-running tests after a fix | "I only changed a comment, tests don't need to re-run" | You think you only changed a comment. Verify. | Iron Law 1. Full check after every fix. |
| Continue past 10 iterations | "I'm so close, one more try" | 10 failed attempts means the approach is wrong. More iterations won't help. | Iron Law 4. Escalate to user. |
| Delete a failing test | "The test is wrong, not the code" | Maybe. Document why the test is wrong. Write a better test. Don't delete evidence. | Iron Law 5. Fix tests, don't delete them. |
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 140 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 0168040369fe
self-correcting-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository vigneshbarani24/sap-superpowers (9 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 1,488 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-first-bugs
Enforces a test-driven bug-fixing workflow. Use when a user reports a bug, failing code, an error, or asks to fix something.
lsp-refactoring
Intelligent code refactoring using IDE-level tools (rename, find-references, go-to-definition), AST-aware pattern matching, and TDD verification. Use for safe, large-scale refactoring with precision.
vibe-slice-migrator
Progressively migrates legacy prototype routes and features to a clean architecture layer slice-by-slice, verifying them against characterization tests, running purity/drift checks, and executing completion certifications.
fixing-bugs
Fix a bug using strict TDD — UNDERSTAND → REPRODUCE (RED) → VERIFY RED → FIX → VERIFY GREEN → VALIDATE → REFACTOR. Use when the user reports a bug, asks to fix something, mentions a Sentry/error/regression, or pastes a stack trace. Bugs require a failing test that proves the bug existed before any code change. For…
triage-issue
Invoked helper skill for deep bug diagnosis, usually delegated from /qa when a reported issue needs root-cause analysis and a TDD fix plan before implementation. Use when the cause is unclear, the bug is a regression, or the user explicitly wants diagnosis. Not for lightweight QA intake (use /qa) or already-clear…
test-first-bugfix
Test-driven bug fixing — reproduce before you fix. Use this skill whenever the user reports a bug, describes unexpected behavior, says something is broken, mentions a regression, or asks you to fix an error. This includes phrases like "this is broken", "X doesn't work", "there's a bug in", "getting an error when", "it…