agent loop detected: repeating the same proposal task to add e-signature fields to a customer proposal error loop...

TL;DR

Fix this in the proposal generator by acting on the exact message first: fingerprint every attempt at the task, add e-signature fields to a customer proposal, from its inputs plus its last result, stop after two identical fingerprints, and change one thing before retrying, a different source, a narrower query or a human check, recording the repeated action in the run log so the loop is visible. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

Agent loop detected: repeating the same proposal task to add e-signature fields to a customer proposal error loop

Use this when

• The operation in the proposal generator fails with this exact message: Agent loop detected: repeating the same proposal task to add e-signature fields to a customer proposal error loop.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A call, review or send is blocked until this item completes.

Not for this skill when

• The message is a permission or outage notice from the platform. Resolve that first, then return here if this error remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with its output. That is a quality review, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure with the smallest scope that still shows it in the proposal generator, and copy the full message plus the account, contact, quote or meeting involved into the run notes. Verify: the error is reproduced on demand with a named item, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this error: fingerprint every attempt at the task, add e-signature fields to a customer proposal, from its inputs plus its last result, stop after two identical fingerprints, and change one thing before retrying, a different source, a narrower query or a human check, recording the repeated action in the run log so the loop is visible. Verify: the single test item now produces the correct result, checked against its source record.
3. Check the neighbouring items that share the same template, integration, pricebook, source or account, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Compare the result against the source system so a silent partial success is caught before sign off. Verify: counts and key values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
5. Rerun the original operation in the proposal generator on the previously failing scope, watching for the same message rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original message does not appear.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the item so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the error, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Why it happens

The agent retried add e-signature fields to a customer proposal with unchanged inputs after a result it did not recognise as success, so each attempt reproduced the same state and the loop detector tripped.

Variant phrasings

Agent loop detected: repeating the same proposal task to add e-signature fields to a customer proposal error loop

The verbatim form searchers paste from the terminal or console. Treat it identically: same fix, same single item proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix: agent loop detected: repeating the same proposal task to add e-signature fields to a customer proposal error loop failure

The how-to phrasing for the same failure in the proposal generator. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Troubleshooting this failure in the proposal generator

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

Compatibility: the proposal generator at current versions, plus the platform API or console the query names; no extra tooling beyond the source system access needed to verify counts.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_Nx95wn0hC5tzylvE8srKOA