Ralph Wiggum Coding: The Loop Is Easy. The Prompts Are Everything.

If you’ve been anywhere near AI development Twitter lately, you’ve seen it: the Ralph Wiggum approach to coding.

Named after the Simpsons character who never stops trying despite perpetual failure, the technique is disarmingly simple. Run an AI coding agent in a loop. Let it fail. Let it try again. Keep going until it succeeds or hits a limit.

The results have been striking. Geoffrey Huntley, who pioneered the approach, delivered a $50,000 contract for $297 in API costs. Boris Cherny, who created Claude Code, landed 259 PRs in 30 days, every line written by AI. Anthropic shipped an official plugin.

The viral posts focus on the loop. The bash script. The overnight automation.

They’re missing the point.

The loop is trivial

Here’s the entire technique:

while :; do cat PROMPT.md | claude ; done

That’s it. You can write it in thirty seconds.

So why do some developers get transformative results while others burn through API credits watching an agent spin in circles?

The answer isn’t the loop. It’s what you feed it.

Prompt quality is the real unlock

The official documentation says it directly: “Success with Ralph depends on writing good prompts, not just having a good model.”

Most coverage stops at “be specific” and “include completion criteria.” That’s table stakes. The developers getting serious results are operating at a different level.

Consider:

A prompt that will fail:

Build a todo API and make it good.

A prompt that works:

/ralph-wiggum:ralph-loop "Implement REST API for todo items.

Requirements:
- CRUD endpoints for todos
- Input validation on all fields  
- Error handling with proper HTTP status codes

Success criteria:
- All endpoints responding correctly
- Tests passing with >80% coverage  

After 15 iterations if not complete:
- Document blocking issues
- List attempted approaches

Output <promise>COMPLETE</promise> when done." --max-iterations 30

The second prompt does three things the first doesn’t: it defines success clearly, it tells the agent how to verify its work, and it includes instructions for how to fail usefully.

That last part is what separates good prompts from great ones.

The prompt quality hierarchy

After running these loops across multiple projects, I think about prompt quality in three tiers:

Tier 1: Completion criteria. The agent knows when to stop. Most people get here.

Tier 2: Self-verification. The agent can check its own work. Boris Cherny calls this “probably the most important thing.” Give Claude a way to verify its output, and quality doubles.

Tier 3: Failure recovery. The prompt includes what to do when stuck. Not just “try again,” but diagnostic steps, alternative approaches, and graceful degradation. This is where the real leverage lives, and almost nobody talks about it.

Most failures happen because prompts work for the happy path but have no recovery strategy. The agent gets stuck, spins for 50 iterations, and produces nothing useful.

A well-designed prompt treats failure as information. Instead of losing two hours, you lose two hours with something to show for it.

The counterintuitive truth

Here’s what the viral posts don’t mention: cramming more detail into your prompt often makes things worse.

Research suggests optimal context utilization is 40-60%. Push beyond that, and model performance degrades on everything, not just the new instructions.

The practitioners getting consistent results keep their prompts lean. They tell Claude how to find information rather than stuffing everything upfront. They break large tasks into smaller loops.

More detail feels like more control. With LLMs, there’s a point where more detail becomes less capability.

Where this is heading

Here’s what I believe: we’re at the very beginning of understanding how to work with these systems.

Right now, most people think the bottleneck is model capability. It’s not. The bottleneck is our ability to communicate intent clearly enough that a machine can act on it autonomously. That’s a skill. And like any skill, the people who develop it early will have an enormous advantage.

The Ralph Wiggum technique is a window into that future. Not because the loop is clever, but because it exposes, ruthlessly, whether your prompts are actually good. Every failed iteration is feedback. Every successful run is evidence that you’ve learned to think in a way machines can execute.

The developers treating this as a bash script trick are missing the larger shift. The ones treating it as a new discipline for human-machine collaboration are going to build things the rest of us can’t imagine yet.

The loop is easy. The prompts are everything.

---

We’re using these techniques to accelerate development on multiple projects. If you’re working through similar challenges, reach out.