renovate agent got stuck in a loop: bumped lodash, which required b

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Stop the agent from bumping packages one at a time. Solve the whole dependency graph in a single constraint pass, cap the agent at 3 resolve attempts, and treat a version flipping back to a value it already had as a loop to escalate, not a state to resolve again. Circular loops come from greedy sequential bumps; a joint solve fixes them in one shot.

The query

renovate agent got stuck in a loop: bumped lodash, which required bumping webpack, which required bumping lodash again

Use this when

• The agent's version history shows the same package bouncing between two versions
• An upgrade PR keeps getting force-pushed with "fix constraints" commits
• CI fails on a different package each iteration of the loop
• The agent has burned hours of compute re-running the resolver

Not for

• A peer-dependency conflict inside a single install
• Lockfile merge conflicts from rebasing
• Registry 429s or timeouts during verification
• A genuinely unresolvable dependency set (nothing satisfies all constraints)

Steps

1. Log every bump the agent made

List the package, the from-version, and the to-version for each attempt, in order. You need this to see the oscillation.

Expected output: a short list like lodash 4.17.20 -> 4.17.21 -> 4.17.20, showing the same version repeating.

2. Write down the full constraint set on paper

For each package the agent touched, write the constraint its dependents actually declare: webpack 5.x requires lodash 4.17.21 or later and plugin-x requires lodash below 4.17.21 or whatever the real declarations are. Read them from package.json files and lockfiles, not from the agent's summary.

Expected output: every constraint for the bumped packages listed with the package that declares it.

3. Solve all of it in one pass

Run the package manager's resolver once against the full set, e.g. npm install --package-lock-only after pinning the target versions, or hand the constraint set to the Renovate/Dependabot config and let it propose one PR. No sequential single-package bumps.

Expected output: one resolved lockfile, or one clear "no solution" error naming the conflicting constraints.

4. Cap attempts and detect oscillation

Give the agent a hard limit: 3 resolve attempts per upgrade task. Keep a set of versions already tried per package; if a bump targets a version already in the set, stop and escalate.

Expected output: the agent halts after 3 attempts with a summary instead of looping indefinitely.

5. Escalate with the conflict named

The escalation message must name the two constraints that cannot both be satisfied, e.g. "webpack needs lodash>=4.17.21, but plugin-x caps lodash<4.17.21. Human needed."

Expected output: a review request or issue naming the conflicting pair, not a 47th bump attempt.

Variant phrasings

renovate automerge flip-flopping two PRs

Same fix. The oscillation detector in step 4 works across PRs: record attempted version pairs per package pair, not just per package.

dependabot PR loop react 19 vs design system

Same fix, with an extra rule: never downgrade a package below a version another package in the same PR set requires. Check the constraint set first (step 2).

circular pip upgrade every resolve unpins a different package

Same fix. pip install with all targets in one command lets the resolver see the full picture instead of chasing one conflict at a time.

Why it happens

The agent bumps greedily: upgrade A, run the resolver, see B complain, upgrade B, see A complain. Each step is locally reasonable and globally a loop. Nothing in the agent's config tracks which versions it already tried, so it can revisit the same state forever. A joint solve breaks the pattern because the resolver sees every constraint at once.

Edge cases

• Genuinely unresolvable sets: if the joint solve says no solution exists, that is the answer. Do not let the agent "try one more combo."
• Calver packages: an agent that treats calver as semver will pick wrong targets and loop forever. Check the versioning scheme before bumping.
• Peer dependencies: npm's peer resolution can force oscillation even with a joint solve. Pin the peer pair explicitly in step 3.
• Time-boxed agents: if the agent has a wall-clock limit, the loop eats it silently. Add the attempt cap in step 4 regardless of time budget.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstcH7UhAg5ZFEP0kzeezDeA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstcH7UhAg5ZFEP0kzeezDeA

Thread query: renovate agent got stuck in a loop: bumped lodash, which required bumping webpack, which required bumping lodash again

TL;DR: Stop the agent from bumping packages one at a time. Solve the whole dependency graph in a single constraint pass, cap the agent at 3 resolve attempts, and treat a version flipping back to a value it already had as a loop to escalate, not a state to resolve again. Circular loops come from greedy sequential bumps; a joint solve fixes them in one shot.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR: Stop automerging the two packages and put them in one Renovate group so they land as a single PR. The pair can never settle independently because A's range requires B 2.0 or newer while B's range requires A older than 3, so alternating merges are the only possible outcome. Find one pair of versions that satisfies both constraints, merge it once by hand, then re-enable automerge on the group.

A needed B>=2 but B needed A<3, and the agent merged them alternately all day

1. Pause automerge for both packages. Add a packageRule matching the two packages with automerge turned off, or apply a manual-approval label the bot respects. Expected: no new automerge runs pick up either package; the flipping stops immediately.

2. Put both packages in one Renovate group (same groupName in the packageRule) so the bot opens a single PR instead of two competing ones. Expected: one PR appears touching both A and B, replacing the two flip-flopping PRs.

3. Resolve a compatible pair by hand: pick a version of A older than 3 and a version of B at 2.0 or newer such that each satisfies the other's peer range. Read both packages' peerDependencies to confirm. Expected: one concrete version pair that satisfies both ranges at once.

4. Push the pinned pair on the grouped branch and merge it manually with CI green. Expected: CI passes, the flip-flop stops, and no new PRs appear for either package.

5. Re-enable automerge only after confirming both packages' constraints stay satisfiable, and keep them grouped going forward. Expected: future bumps arrive as one grouped PR that can actually merge.

Use this when

• Renovate automerge merges two PRs back and forth, each undoing the other
• Two dependencies constrain each other's version ranges (A needs B newer, B needs A older)
• The agent "merged them alternately all day" with no progress
• Peer ranges that cannot both float independently

Not for this skill when

• Dependabot PRs are flipping (different tool, different grouping model)
• npm fails at install time with an ERESOLVE peer conflict (install-time resolution, not PR scheduling)
• A single upgrade PR fails CI for an unrelated reason
• Lockfile churn with no version-range coupling between the packages

Variant phrasings

• renovate merged A then B then A again, undoing itself each time
• two renovate PRs undoing each other in a loop
• automerge loop between interdependent packages
• peer range conflict spread across two renovate PRs

Why it happens

Automerge treats each PR as independent, but the version constraints couple them: merging A's bump invalidates B's range and merging B's bump invalidates A's. Without a group, the scheduler has no way to see the pair as one decision, so it just keeps alternating. This is a planning problem, not a test problem: no amount of green CI fixes mutually exclusive ranges merged separately.

Edge cases

• If no version pair satisfies both ranges, the dependencies are genuinely incompatible: one must be replaced or a range widened upstream. Grouping cannot fix that.
• Keep the group to exactly the coupled packages; grouping unrelated majors recreates the "which bump broke CI" problem.
• Check the grouped branch name is stable so CI caches survive across the bot's rebases.
• If other open PRs depend on either package, sequence them after the grouped merge lands.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_y79NTbKB-0HsGxb6umT9Lg

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_y79NTbKB-0HsGxb6umT9Lg

Thread query: renovate automerge kept flip-flopping two PRs: A needed B>=2 but B needed A<3, and the agent merged them alternately all day

TL;DR:

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the clause agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: break the loop by capping retries on the step that tries to update the clause library after a policy change at three attempts, log the state after each attempt, change one input on the next attempt such as the search phrasing, and confirm the step either succeeds or stops with a clear reason. Do not rerun the same workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one workflow run first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to update the clause library after a policy change error failure

Use this when

• The agent workflow fails with this exact problem: agent stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to update the clause library after a policy change error failure.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A clause search, drafting, review or reporting task run by the agent is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor or the clause bank provider. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a clause wording or negotiation position. That is a legal owner decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named run of the task to update the clause library after a policy change and record the full problem text plus the contract or clause set involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named run, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: break the loop by capping retries on the step that tries to update the clause library after a policy change at three attempts, log the state after each attempt, change one input on the next attempt such as the search phrasing, and confirm the step either succeeds or stops with a clear reason. Verify: the single failing workflow run now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected output is visible on the run.
3. Check neighbouring steps in the same workflow that share the same clause bank connection, playbook or session, because this class of failure rarely affects only one step. Verify: the neighbouring steps are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original task in the workflow on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the task completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the clause bank record, the playbook position or the source document, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the workflow run log so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

agent stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to update the clause library after a policy change error failure

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single workflow run proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - agent stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to update the clause library after a policy change error failure

The how to phrasing for the same failure in the clause agent workflow. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

The clause agent workflow troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

The step has no exit condition tied to progress, so when the result does not change the agent reads the same state as new work and repeats the step indefinitely.

Edge cases

• The clause bank, playbook or source document changed after the failing run started. Refresh the current state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single workflow run proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other contracts. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared connection, playbook or session can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The clause bank governs approved wording, the playbook governs negotiation position, and the source document governs extracted facts; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: Clause library and agent workflow tooling at current versions, plus the clause bank, playbook or document source the query names; no extra tooling beyond access to the source records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_OAZxxGwiZRjMoreiHunWlQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_OAZxxGwiZRjMoreiHunWlQ

Thread query: agent stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to update the clause library after a policy change error failure

TL;DR: Fix this in the clause agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: break the loop by capping retries on the step that tries to update the clause library after a policy change at three attempts, log the state after each attempt, change one input on the next attempt such as the search phrasing, and confirm the step either succeeds or stops with a clear reason. Do not rerun the same workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one workflow run first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.