Right, that's interesting. Did you try tabling the looping program? That's one way to avoid (some) looping behaviour.
Note that p10 - p13 are meant to be called in mode (+,?) according to their comments, so (-,+) (or (-,?)!) is asking for trouble. I can see you were looking for a program that would run in arbitrary mode that is also non- or semi-deterministic ("gives one answer". Did you mean more like functional?) but I replied to another comment just to point to existing RLE programs, not to give examples of what you were asking.
The instantiation error is the kind of thing that you'd use a "green" cut to avoid. The cut in that case would avoid unnecessary backtracking and not change the results of the program.
I don't know about the malformed result. I'd have to pick at it a bit and I don't want to do this now. I also don't want to try and write a "pure" version, first because I don't think it satisfies any real-world need, and second because I already have a version that seems to work OK and uses cuts. I wrote it several years ago (possibly around 2010 ish). I'm copying it here keeping the idiosyncracies of my coding and commenting style at the time.
%! run_length_encoding(+List, -Run_length_encoding) is det.
%
% Run_length_encoding is a list of all key-value pairs where each
% key is an element in List and value the number of consecutive
% repetitions of that element up to the first differing element.
%
% For example:
% ==
% ?- run_length_encoding([a,a,a,b,b,b,b,b,b,c,c,c,a,a,f], RLE).
% RLE = [a-3, b-6, c-3, a-2, f-1].
% ==
%
run_length_encoding([], []-0):- !.
run_length_encoding([H|List], Run_length_encoding):-
run_length_encoding(List, [H-1], Run_length_encoding).
% Last element in input list or single-element input list.
run_length_encoding([], [C-F|Fs], Run_length_encoding):-
reverse([C-F|Fs], Run_length_encoding).
% Run of N consecutive identical elements
run_length_encoding([C|Cs],[C-F|Fs], Acc):-
! % Orange ish; backtracking will produce successive
% counts of repetitions of C from different indices in the list
% I think.
,F_ is F + 1
,run_length_encoding(Cs, [C-F_| Fs], Acc).
% End of run of N consecutive identical elements.
run_length_encoding([C|Cs], Fs, Acc):-
run_length_encoding(Cs,[C-1|Fs], Acc).
I give this as an example of a simple, short program you can write in Prolog to accomplish a simple, useful task, while using the cut to make your life easier, which is what I'm arguing about here.
Note the uncertainty I had at the time about the use of the cut in the second auxiliary clause. I've left that comment in, in the interest of being honest about the difficulties in learning how to use the cut correctly. As I say, that was written many years ago. I'm not arguing that it's easy to learn to use the cut, I'm just saying that it makes your life easier once you've learned how to use it. I should probably have made that more clear in my comment.
Please let me know if my code above breaks. I haven't tested it in ages. But please respect the documented call modes and determinism :)
Edit: if you're wondering about the use of reverse/2, the goal is to simplify debugging; if you put accumulators in the head, you don't see their instantiations until recursion unrolls, so you don't know what's going on.
Edit 2: To further clarify, as documented, the program only runs in one mode, (+,-). It was an auxiliary for another program that calculates the Shannon entropy of a string (tokenised as a list of characters) so there was no need for other modes. Not every Prolog program needs to run in all possible modes. And even when one does, it's often simpler to write multiple auxiliaries for additional modes. And why not do the simpler thing, when you can? The point is to write programs that have the desired behaviour. The constant complaint about Prolog (in this discussion also) is that it makes it hard to do simple things, not that it doesn't look pretty. So we should talk about how easy it is to do simple things, not how hard it is to write pretty programs.