Select a `delaySeconds` value when scheduling a loop wakeup via the `ScheduleWakeup` tool or the `/loop` slash command. Covers the three-tier cache-aware decision (cache-warm under 5 minutes, cache-miss 5 minutes to 1 hour, idle default 20 to 30 minutes), the 300-second anti-pattern, the [60, 3600] runtime clamp, the minute-boundary rounding quirk, and writing a telemetry-worthy `reason` field. Use when designing an autonomous loop, when a heartbeat cadence is being planned, when polling cade...
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add pjt222/agent-almanac --skill choose-loop-wakeup-interval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Choose Loop Wakeup Interval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/pjt222-choose-loop-wakeup-interval-3296f14b)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: choose-loop-wakeup-interval
description: >
Select a `delaySeconds` value when scheduling a loop wakeup via the
`ScheduleWakeup` tool or the `/loop` slash command. Covers the three-tier
cache-aware decision (cache-warm under 5 minutes, cache-miss 5 minutes to
1 hour, idle default 20 to 30 minutes), the 300-second anti-pattern, the
[60, 3600] runtime clamp, the minute-boundary rounding quirk, and writing
a telemetry-worthy `reason` field. Use when designing an autonomous loop,
when a heartbeat cadence is being planned, when polling cadence is being
tuned, or when post-hoc review of loop costs reveals interval mis-sizing.
license: MIT
allowed-tools: ""
metadata:
author: Philipp Thoss
version: "1.0"
domain: general
complexity: intermediate
language: multi
tags: loop, wakeup, cache, scheduling, delay, general
---
# Choose Loop Wakeup Interval
Pick a `delaySeconds` value for `ScheduleWakeup` that respects the prompt cache's 5-minute TTL, the scheduler's whole-minute granularity, and the `[60, 3600]` runtime clamp. The decision is structurally non-trivial: the common instinct "wait about 5 minutes" lands in the worst-of-both zone — pay the cache miss without amortizing the wait.
The reasoning travels with the `ScheduleWakeup` tool description at tool-call time, but by then the loop is already being scheduled. This skill hoists that reasoning to planning time, where it belongs.
## When to Use
- Designing an autonomous `/loop` or `ScheduleWakeup`-driven continuation and picking the per-tick delay
- Planning a heartbeat cadence for a long-running agent that will poll, watch, or iterate
- Tuning polling cadence against cost or cache-warmth pressure
- Post-hoc reviewing loop costs and discovering the interval was mis-sized
- Writing a guide, runbook, or worked example that involves picking `delaySeconds`
## Inputs
- **Required**: What the loop is waiting for (a specific event, a state transition, an idle tick, a periodic check)
- **Required**: Whether the reader of this tick will need fresh context (cache-warm) or can tolerate a cold re-read (cache-miss acceptable)
- **Optional**: Any known lower bound on when the awaited event could possibly occur (e.g. "the build takes at least 4 minutes")
- **Optional**: A cost ceiling on the total loop (number of ticks × per-tick cost)
## Procedure
### Step 1: Classify the Wait
Decide which tier the wait belongs to:
- **Active watch (cache-warm)**: something is expected to change within the next 5 minutes — a build nearing completion, a state transition being polled, a process that was just kicked off
- **Cache-miss wait**: nothing worth checking sooner than 5 minutes from now; the context cache will go cold and that is acceptable
- **Idle**: no specific signal to watch; the loop is checking in because it might find something, not because it will
**Expected:** A clear classification: active-watch, cache-miss, or idle.
**On failure:** If the wait cannot be classified — if there is no honest answer to "what am I waiting for?" — the loop probably should not exist. Skip to Step 5 and consider not scheduling a wakeup at all.
### Step 2: Apply the Three-Tier Decision
Pick a `delaySeconds` based on the classification:
| Tier | Range | Cache behaviour | Use when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cache-warm | **60 – 270 s** | Cache stays warm (under 5-minute TTL) | Active watch — the next tick needs fast, cheap re-entry |
| Cache-miss | **1200 – 3600 s** | Cache goes cold; one miss buys a long wait | Genuinely idle, or the awaited event cannot happen sooner |
| Idle default | **1200 – 1800 s** (20–30 min) | Cache goes cold | No specific signal; periodic check with user able to interrupt |
**Do not pick 300 s.** It is the worst-of-both interval: the cache misses, but the wait is too short to amortize the miss. If you find yourself reaching for "about 5 minutes," drop to 270 s (stay warm) or commit to 1200 s+ (amortize the miss).
**Expected:** A specific `delaySeconds` value chosen from one of the three tiers, not a round-number-minute value picked out of habit.
**On failure:** If the choice keeps landing on 300 s, the underlying question is usually "should this loop exist at this cadence at all?" — re-examine Step 1.
### Step 3: Size for the Minute Boundary
The scheduler fires on whole-minute boundaries. A `delaySeconds` of `N` produces an actual delay of `N` to `N + 60` s, depending on what second of the minute you call the tool.
Worked example:
> Calling `ScheduleWakeup({delaySeconds: 90})` at `HH:MM:40` produces a target of `HH:(MM+2):00` — i.e. an actual wait of 140 s, not 90 s.
Consequence: sub-minute intent is meaningless. Treat the value you pass as a **floor**, not a precise schedule. If a minute of skew matters, your loop cadence is too tight for this mechanism.
**Expected:** You have accepted that the actual wait will be up to 60 s longer than the requested `delaySeconds`. For cache-warm ticks this matters — 270 s can become ~330 s in practice, tipping into cache-miss territory.
**On failure:** If near-the-ceiling values (e.g. 265 s when targeting cache-warmth) are common, pad downward — use 240 s instead of 270 s to preserve the cache-warm guarantee even under worst-case minute-boundary skew.
### Step 4: Respect the Clamp
The runtime clamps `delaySeconds` to `[60, 3600]` — values outside that range are silently adjusted. Telemetry distinguishes what the model asked for (`chosen_delay_seconds`) from what actually scheduled (`clamped_delay_seconds`) and sets `was_clamped: true` on any mismatch.
Plan against the clamped value, not the requested one:
- Request below 60 → actual wait is 60 s plus minute-boundary skew (up to 120 s in practice)
- Request above 3600 → actual wait is 3600 s (1 hour)
- No runtime extends the ceiling; multi-hour waits require multiple ticks
**Expected:** Your chosen value falls inside `[60, 3600]`, or you have deliberately accepted the clamped behaviour.
**On failure:** If the need is genuinely multi-hour (e.g. "wake me in 4 hours"), chain wakeups — schedule a 3600 s tick that itself reschedules — or use a cron-based loop (`CronCreate` with `kind: "loop"`) instead.
### Step 5: Write a Specific `reason`
The `reason` field is telemetry, user-visible status, and prompt-cache warmth reasoning in one line. It is truncated to 200 chars. Make it specific.
- Good: `checking long bun build`, `polling for EC2 instance running-state`, `idle heartbeat — watching the feed`
- Bad: `waiting`, `loop`, `next tick`, `continuing`
The reader of this field is a user trying to understand what the loop is doing without having to predict your cadence in advance. Write for them.
**Expected:** A concrete, one-phrase reason that would make sense to a user glancing at status.
**On failure:** If no specific reason can be given, revisit whether the loop should exist (Step 1 and Step 6).
### Step 6: Recognize the Don't-Loop Case
Not every "come back later" impulse warrants a scheduled wakeup. Do NOT schedule a tick when:
- The user is actively watching — their input is the right trigger, not a timer
- There is no convergence criterion — the loop has no definition of "done"
- The task is interactive (asks the user questions between ticks)
- The cadence needed is shorter than the clamp floor (60 s) — polling that tight belongs to an event-driven mechanism, not a loop
**Expected:** A conscious choice between scheduling a wakeup and not looping at all. "Because I could" is not a reason to loop.
**On failure:** If you keep scheduling wakeups that the user interrupts before they fire, the pattern is wrong — not the interval.
## Validation
- [ ] The wait was classified as active-watch, cache-miss, or idle (one of three)
- [ ] The chosen `delaySeconds` falls in one of the three tier ranges (60–270, 1200–3600, or 1200–1800 for idle)
- [ ] The value is not 300 (worst-of-both)
- [ ] The value is inside `[60, 3600]` or the clamped behaviour is explicitly accepted
- [ ] Minute-boundary skew has been accounted for (treat the value as a floor)
- [ ] `reason` is concrete and under 200 chars
- [ ] The don't-loop check was performed — the wakeup is actually warranted
## Common Pitfalls
- **Round-minute default (300 s)**: The single most common mistake. "About 5 minutes" feels natural and is exactly wrong. Drop to 270 s or commit to 1200 s+.
- **Ignoring minute-boundary skew**: Requesting 60 s near the end of a minute can produce ~120 s of actual delay. For cache-warm ticks, this can push the tick past the 5-minute TTL unexpectedly.
- **Chasing sub-minute precision**: The scheduler has minute granularity. Asking for 85 s vs. 90 s vs. 95 s is noise — pick a value and move on.
- **Opaque `reason` fields**: `"waiting"` tells the user nothing and makes telemetry less useful. Write the reason as if the user will read it on a status line.
- **Using this skill to justify an unnecessary loop**: If the honest answer to "what am I watching for?" is vague, no interval choice will help — the loop should not exist.
- **Hand-clamping in the prompt**: Do not clamp in the model's reasoning ("I'll cap at 3600 to be safe"). The runtime clamps. Let it.
- **Forgetting the 7-day age-out**: A dynamic loop is reaped after 7 days by default (user-configurable up to 30 days). Long-running loops should be designed to end well before that ceiling, not to race against it.
## Examples
### Example 1 — Cache-warm active watch
A `bun build` was kicked off; the agent wants to check in quickly so the cache is still warm when results arrive.
- Classification: active watch (Step 1)
- Tier: cache-warm (Step 2), pick **240 s**
- Minute boundary (Step 3): worst-case actual wait ~300 s — still under the 5-minute TTL with the 60 s buffer
- Reason (Step 5): `checking long bun build`
### Example 2 — Idle heartbeat
An autonomous agent watches a low-volume feed once an hour for anything worth acting on.
- Classification: idle (Step 1)
- Tier: idle default (Step 2), pick **1800 s** (30 min)
- Minute boundary (Step 3): irrelevant — 60 s of skew is negligible at this cadence
- Reason (Step 5): `idle heartbeat — watching the feed`
### Example 3 — The anti-pattern
An agent wants to "wait 5 minutes" while a remote API retries. The request is 300 s.
- Problem: the cache goes cold at 5 minutes, so 300 s pays the miss — but 300 s is too short to amortize the miss
- Fix: either drop to 270 s (stay warm) or commit to 1500 s (amortize the miss). Do not pick 300.
## Related Skills
- `manage-token-budget` — cost ceilings for long-lived agent loops; cache-aware sizing is one lever
- `du-dum` — observe/act separation pattern; this skill sizes the observe-clock interval when the loop is cron-less
- `read-continue-here` — cross-session handoff; this skill covers within-session wakeups
- `write-continue-here` — the complement of `read-continue-here`
<!-- Keep under 500 lines. Current: ~200 lines. -->
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!