autoresearch
Skill1 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run Karpathy-style autoresearch optimization on any content. Generates 50+ variants, scores with a 5-expert simulated panel, evolves winners through multiple rounds, outputs optimized version + full experiment log. Use when optimizing landing pages, email sequences, ad copy, headlines, form pages, CTA text, or any conversion-focused content. Triggers on "optimize this page", "run autoresearch", "score these variants", "A/B test this copy".
- Reads credentials
100 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data
Most recently taken up by
- thistleknot/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- WdBlink/autoresearch-papertheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- OpenLAIR/dr-clawtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- taixuann/development-spacetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- TidalPaladin/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- usecompai/compound-operations-modeltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use aeon-update, auto-workflow and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
aaronjmarsSkillaeon-update
Pull framework updates from the upstream Aeon repo into this instance - 3-way merges canon's new commits into a PR, never clobbering operator config.
Also in 4 projects that use this
aaronjmarsSkillauto-workflow
Two-mode aeon.yml workflow builder - analyze inspects URLs and emits a tiered, signal-verified skill-enablement plan plus an aeon.yml diff; enable flips slugs to enabled:true and opens a PR.
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +10 more from aaronjmars
Other versions100 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- ericosiu/ai-marketing-skills★ 3.8k100% same
Edited · 1
- LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os★ 1740% same
Wrote their own version · 98
- github/awesome-copilot★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex★ 34ksame name
- AgriciDaniel/claude-obsidian★ 16ksame name
- Orchestra-Research/AI-research-SKILLs★ 13ksame name
- zechenzhangAGI/AI-research-SKILLs★ 13ksame name
- Orchestra-Research/AI-Research-SKILLs★ 12ksame name
- advaitpaliwal/feynman★ 10ksame name
- companion-inc/feynman★ 10ksame name
88 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- eval/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- expert-panelSkill
- conversion-opsSkill
- deck-generatorSkill
- finance-opsSkill
- growth-engineSkill
- cold-outbound-optimizerSkill
- podcast-pipelineSkill
- revenue-intelligenceSkill
- sales-pipelineSkill
- sales-playbookSkill
- seo-opsSkill
- team-opsSkill
- x-longform-postSkill
- yt-competitive-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 95 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 20
Every run outputs 3 files:
- Distinctive: line 127
Read the source content. Identify content type automatically or confirm with user:
- Distinctive: line 130
If ambiguous, ask: "Is this a landing page, email sequence, ad copy, or form page?"
- Very specific: line 146
Check for Anthropic API key: $ANTHROPIC_API_KEY environment variable.
- Distinctive: line 156
Critical API efficiency rule: ALWAYS batch all variants into a single prompt.
- Distinctive: line 165
After all elements have winners:
- Distinctive: line 246
< 70: Don't ship. Something fundamental is broken.
- Distinctive: line 256
Never call the API once per variant: Always batch. A 10-variant round = 1 call.
- Distinctive: line 257
Don't over-optimize for one dimension: If you're hitting 95 on clarity but 45 on trust, the overall score is misleading.
- Distinctive: line 258
Don't run more than 5 rounds: If you're not hitting 80 after 3 rounds, the problem is strategic (wrong positioning), not tactical (wrong …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 95 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Autoresearch Skill
Karpathy-style optimization loops for any conversion-focused content. No traffic needed. Simulated expert panel. Minutes, not weeks.
When to use this: Pre-launch content optimization. Generate 50+ variants, score with 5 simulated experts, evolve winners, output the best version + full experiment log.
When NOT to use this: Post-launch real-traffic A/B testing — that requires real analytics, not simulated scoring.
The sequence: Run autoresearch FIRST to hit 85+ simulated score. Then deploy. Then validate with real traffic.
What You'll Produce
Every run outputs 3 files:
| File | Purpose |
{name}-optimized.{ext} | The winning optimized content |
data/{name}-experiments.json | Full experiment log — all variants + all scores |
data/{name}-optimization-report.md | Human-readable summary with winner rationale |
Expert Panel (5 Personas)
Score every variant against all 5. Batch all variants into a single API call per round.
| # | Persona | Scoring Lens |
| 1 | CMO at a mid-market B2B company (50M+ revenue) | "Would this make me stop and engage?" |
| 2 | Skeptical founder | "Do I believe this? Would I trust this company?" |
| 3 | Conversion rate optimizer | "Is this clear, specific, and action-driving?" |
| 4 | Senior copywriter | "Is this compelling, differentiated, and well-crafted?" |
| 5 | Your CEO/founder | "Direct, ROI-obsessed, no BS. Would I put this on my site?" |
Customization: Replace persona #5 with your own CEO/founder voice. Define their priorities and communication style in a
references/founder-voice.mdfile.
Each judge scores 0–100. Final score = average across all 5 judges.
Round Structure (Per Content Element)
Round 1:
→ Generate 10 variants of the element
→ Batch-score all 10 with the 5-expert panel (1 API call)
→ Rank by average score
→ Keep top 3
Round 2 (Evolution):
→ Analyze what the top 3 did right
→ Generate 10 new variants that push those winning patterns further
→ Batch-score all 10 (1 API call)
→ Keep top 3
Round 3 (If score < threshold):
→ Identify weakest scoring dimension
→ Generate 10 variants optimized for that dimension
→ Batch-score → keep top 1
Multi-element cross-breeding:
→ Take top 1 winner from each element
→ Generate 5 combinations that mix winning elements
→ Score holistically as complete units
→ Output the single best combinationStop condition: Top variant hits minimum score threshold (default: 80) OR 3 rounds complete.
Content Types & Score Dimensions
Landing Pages
Elements to optimize: Hero headline, subheadline, CTA text, problem section, social proof
Score dimensions:
first_impression— Does it grab immediately?clarity— Is the offer instantly understood?trust— Does it feel credible?urgency— Is there a reason to act now?would_convert— Would the judge actually click?
Email Sequences
Elements to optimize: Subject line, opening line, body copy, CTA, PS line
Score dimensions:
would_open— Subject line pass ratewould_read— Does the opening hook?would_click— Is the CTA compelling?would_reply— Does it feel personal enough to respond to?spam_risk— Does it feel spammy? (lower = better; invert for final score)
Ad Copy
Elements to optimize: Headline, description, CTA
Score dimensions:
scroll_stopping— Does it interrupt the scroll?clarity— Is the value prop clear in 3 seconds?click_worthiness— Does the judge want to click?relevance— Does it match likely audience intent?differentiation— Does it stand out from competitors?
Form Pages
Elements to optimize: Headline, subtext, value prop bullets, button text, field order, thank-you copy
Score dimensions:
first_impression— Does it feel worth filling out?trust— Do they believe their info is safe and the offer is real?completion_likelihood— Would the judge start filling it out?lead_quality— Would this attract serious prospects (not tire-kickers)?would_fill_out— Final gut check: would they submit?
Step-by-Step Execution Protocol
Step 1: Intake & Parse
Read the source content. Identify content type automatically or confirm with user:
- HTML file → landing page or form page
- Markdown / plain text → email or ad copy
- If ambiguous, ask: "Is this a landing page, email sequence, ad copy, or form page?"
Extract all optimizable elements. List them back to user:
Found 5 elements to optimize:
1. Hero headline: "We help B2B companies grow"
2. Subheadline: "Full-service digital marketing..."
3. CTA: "Get Started"
4. Problem statement: [excerpt]
5. Social proof: [excerpt]
Optimizing: all | Variants per round: 10 | Min score: 80Step 2: Get API Key
Check for Anthropic API key: $ANTHROPIC_API_KEY environment variable.
export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY="your-api-key-here"Step 3: Run Optimization Rounds
For each element, run the round structure above.
Critical API efficiency rule: ALWAYS batch all variants into a single prompt. Never call the API once per variant. A round with 10 variants = 1 API call.
Model preference (in order):
claude-sonnet-4-5(preferred — fast + smart)claude-opus-4(if highest quality needed)- Any claude-3.5+ model if the above aren't available
Step 4: Cross-Breed (Multi-Element)
After all elements have winners:
- Assemble the top winner from each element into a complete unit
- Generate 5 holistic variants that naturally combine the winning elements
- Score the complete units (not just individual parts)
- Pick the winner with the highest holistic score
Step 5: Write Output Files
# Create output directory
mkdir -p data
# Write optimized content
# Write experiments JSON
# Write optimization reportExperiments JSON structure:
{
"run_id": "autoresearch-{name}-{timestamp}",
"content_type": "landing_page",
"source_file": "path/to/original",
"min_score_threshold": 80,
"rounds": [
{
"round": 1,
"element": "hero_headline",
"variants": [
{
"id": 1,
"text": "...",
"scores": {
"cmo": 72,
"skeptical_founder": 68,
"cro": 75,
"copywriter": 70,
"founder": 65
},
"avg_score": 70
}
],
"top_3": [1, 4, 7],
"winner_score": 82
}
],
"final_winner": {
"hero_headline": "...",
"subheadline": "...",
"cta": "...",
"holistic_score": 87
}
}Step 6: Report Back
Summarize results to user:
- Final winning score
- Biggest score jump (which element improved most)
- Top 2 runner-up alternatives (in case winner doesn't feel right)
- Path to all 3 output files
- Clear next step
User Options
| Option | Default | Description |
elements | all | Which elements to optimize |
variants_per_round | 10 | How many variants to generate per round |
min_score | 80 | Stop when this score is hit |
rounds | 3 | Max rounds before stopping |
auto_apply | false | Whether to overwrite the source file with winners |
content_type | auto-detect | Force a content type if auto-detect is wrong |
Quality Gates
- < 70: Don't ship. Something fundamental is broken.
- 70-79: Marginal. One more round targeting the lowest-scoring dimension.
- 80-84: Good. Shippable. Validate with real traffic.
- 85-89: Strong. Ship with confidence.
- 90+: Rare. Ship immediately.
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
- Never call the API once per variant. Always batch. A 10-variant round = 1 call.
- Don't over-optimize for one dimension. If you're hitting 95 on clarity but 45 on trust, the overall score is misleading.
- Don't run more than 5 rounds. If you're not hitting 80 after 3 rounds, the problem is strategic (wrong positioning), not tactical (wrong words).
- Don't cross-breed until each element has its own winner. Premature cross-breeding creates incoherent combinations.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

