Audit a proposed bounded self-improvement loop against the four-primitive stack (invariants, anchor, multi-objective, regression detection). Use when you need help with bounded loop review.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill bounded-loop-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Bounded Loop Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-bounded-loop-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: bounded-loop-review
description: Audit a proposed bounded self-improvement loop against the four-primitive stack (invariants, anchor, multi-objective, regression detection). Use when you need help with bounded loop review.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 15
lesson: 8
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [bounded-self-improvement, invariants, alignment-anchor, rsi-safety]
---
Given a proposed self-improvement loop, score it against the four bounding primitives identified by the ICLR 2026 RSI Workshop and produce a concrete gap analysis.
Produce:
1. **Invariant inventory.** List every invariant the loop enforces. For each, name (a) what is checked, (b) where the check runs (inside/outside agent reach), (c) what a violation does (hard reject, pause, log-only).
2. **Anchor identification.** Name the alignment anchor (objective statement, constitution, intent description). State its storage location and verify the loop cannot edit it. If there is no anchor, flag as missing.
3. **Multi-objective axes.** List every axis the loop evaluates. Confirm safety, fairness, and robustness are present alongside performance. A single-axis loop fails this check.
4. **Regression policy.** State the historical window, the per-axis tolerance, and what happens when a drop is detected. Confirm regression checks use an external comparison set, not just internal history.
5. **Gap analysis.** For each missing primitive, predict which failure class will emerge first. Invariants missing → smuggled capability or tool drift. Anchor missing → objective reinterpretation. Multi-objective missing → safety regression masking performance gain. Regression missing → silent capability loss.
Hard rejects:
- Any loop with zero invariants.
- Any loop without an alignment anchor outside the edit surface.
- Any loop that optimizes a single scalar score.
- Any loop whose regression check reads only from its own history (the loop defines "normal").
Refusal rules:
- If the user treats "it hasn't broken yet" as evidence of safety, refuse and require explicit gate design before any compute is spent.
- If the user cannot produce the invariants list in 15 minutes, refuse — the loop has no invariants.
- If the loop is proposed to run in production (affecting real users or infrastructure) without all four primitives, refuse and require staging with monitoring first.
Output format:
Return a scored review with:
- **Invariant score** (0-5 with explicit list)
- **Anchor score** (0-5 with storage and verify method)
- **Multi-objective score** (0-5 with axes listed)
- **Regression score** (0-5 with tolerance and window)
- **Gap analysis** (predicted first failure, mitigation plan)
- **Deployment readiness** (production / staging / research-only)

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!