agentleFS
lza6lza6/claw-code-tingfeng/skills/autopilot/SKILL.md

autopilot

Skill5 starsChanged 12 days agoMITView on GitHub

Full autonomous execution from idea to working code

74 other projects use a version of this, 4 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use review-bugbot, rename-chat and 9 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.
  • 0mlkrizzz655335vSkill

    review-bugbot

    缺陷导向代码审查。用 Bugbot 子代理找 bug。

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • 0mlkrizzz655335vSkill

    rename-chat

    重命名当前聊天。按聊天内容改标题。"disable-model-invocation: true

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Tsumugii24Skill

    split-to-prs

    Split current work into small reviewable PRs. Use when the user asks to split a chat, set of changes, branch, or PR.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • PandelisZSkill

    update-cli-config

    View and modify Cursor CLI configuration settings in ~/.cursor/cli-config.json. Use when the user wants to change CLI settings, configure permissions, switch approval mode, enable vim mode, toggle display options, configure sandbox, or manage any CLI preferences.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • 32103210Skill

    migrate-to-skills

    Convert 'Applied intelligently' Cursor rules (.cursor/rules/*.mdc) and slash commands (.cursor/commands/*.md) to Agent Skills format (.cursor/skills/). Use when you want to migrate rules or commands to skills, convert .mdc rules to SKILL.md format, or consolidate commands into the skills directory.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • 32103210Skill

    update-cursor-settings

    Modify Cursor/VSCode user settings in settings.json. Use when you want to change editor settings, preferences, configuration, themes, font size, tab size, format on save, auto save, keybindings, or any settings.json values.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +1 more from 32103210
  • +1 more from 0mlkrizzz655335v

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

26 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 14 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 66 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 12

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 14

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If a deep-interview spec exists, use it as high-clarity phase input instead of re-expanding from scratch

    line 46
  2. Very specific:

    If input is too vague for reliable expansion, offer/trigger $deep-interview first

    line 47
  3. Very specific:

    Do not enter expansion/planning/execution-heavy phases until pre-context grounding exists.

    line 48
  4. Distinctive:

    Default to concise, evidence-dense progress and completion reporting unless the user or risk level requires more detail

    line 49
  5. Distinctive:

    Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints

    line 50
  6. Distinctive:

    If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the workflow is …

    line 51
  7. Very specific:

    If no snapshot exists, create .omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md (UTC YYYYMMDDTHHMMSSZ) with:

    line 59
  8. Very specific:

    If ambiguity remains high, run explore first for brownfield facts, then run $deep-interview --quick <task> before proceeding.

    line 66
  9. Very specific:

    If .omx/specs/deep-interview-*.md exists for this task: reuse it and skip redundant expansion work

    line 70
  10. Very specific:

    If prompt is highly vague: route to $deep-interview for Socratic ambiguity-gated clarification

    line 71
  11. Distinctive:

    Phase 1 - Planning: Create an implementation plan from the spec

    line 76
  12. Distinctive:

    Run independent tasks in parallel

    line 85
  13. Distinctive:

    Stop early if the same error repeats 3 times (indicates a fundamental issue)

    line 90
  14. Distinctive:

    All must approve; fix and re-validate on rejection

    line 96
  15. Very specific:

    Before first MCP tool use, call ToolSearch("mcp") to discover deferred MCP tools

    line 107
  16. Very specific:

    Use ask_codex with agent_role: "architect" for Phase 4 architecture validation

    line 108
  17. Very specific:

    Use ask_codex with agent_role: "security-reviewer" for Phase 4 security review

    line 109
  18. Very specific:

    Use ask_codex with agent_role: "code-reviewer" for Phase 4 quality review

    line 110
  19. Distinctive:

    If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools or Codex is unavailable, proceed without it -- never block on external tools </Tool_Usage>

    line 112
  20. Very specific:

    Use omx_state MCP tools for autopilot lifecycle state.

    line 117
  21. Distinctive:

    Stop and report when the same QA error persists across 3 cycles (fundamental issue requiring human input)

    line 163
  22. Distinctive:

    Stop and report when validation keeps failing after 3 re-validation rounds

    line 164
  23. Distinctive:

    Stop when the user says "stop", "cancel", or "abort"

    line 165
  24. Very specific:

    If requirements were too vague and expansion produces an unclear spec, pause and redirect to $deep-interview before proceeding …

    line 166
  25. Very specific:

    If autopilot was cancelled or failed, run /autopilot again to resume from where it stopped.

    line 196
  26. Very specific:

    Stuck in a phase?: Check TODO list for blocked tasks, run state_read({mode: "autopilot"}), or cancel and resume.

    line 240

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 66 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

clawd 路径适配(重要):本技能移植自 oh-my-codex,文中所有 ~/.codex/...、 .codex/skills/、CODEX_HOME 都是 Codex 时代的路径。在 clawd 里真实生效的是:

  • 技能位置:<项目>/skills/<name>/SKILL.md(支持分组子目录,如 skills/reverse/<sub>/SKILL.md,发现逻辑是递归的)
  • 运行期数据/配置:<项目>/.clawd/(sessions/、logs/、features.json 等)
  • 查当前实际发现到的技能:clawd hud 或直接调 skill 工具;诊断环境用 clawd doctor

只有当你确实在 Codex 里运行本技能时,~/.codex/... 那套路径才成立。 在 clawd 里照着 ~/.codex/... 找文件只会得到"不存在"。

<Purpose> Autopilot takes a brief product idea and autonomously handles the full lifecycle: requirements analysis, technical design, planning, parallel implementation, QA cycling, and multi-perspective validation. It produces working, verified code from a 2-3 line description. </Purpose>

<Use_When>

  • User wants end-to-end autonomous execution from an idea to working code
  • User says "autopilot", "auto pilot", "autonomous", "build me", "create me", "make me", "full auto", "handle it all", or "I want a/an..."
  • Task requires multiple phases: planning, coding, testing, and validation
  • User wants hands-off execution and is willing to let the system run to completion </Use_When>

<Do_Not_Use_When>

  • User wants to explore options or brainstorm -- use plan skill instead
  • User says "just explain", "draft only", or "what would you suggest" -- respond conversationally
  • User wants a single focused code change -- use ralph or delegate to an executor agent
  • User wants to review or critique an existing plan -- use plan --review
  • Task is a quick fix or small bug -- use direct executor delegation </Do_Not_Use_When>

<Why_This_Exists> Most non-trivial software tasks require coordinated phases: understanding requirements, designing a solution, implementing in parallel, testing, and validating quality. Autopilot orchestrates all of these phases automatically so the user can describe what they want and receive working code without managing each step. </Why_This_Exists>

<Execution_Policy>

  • Each phase must complete before the next begins
  • Parallel execution is used within phases where possible (Phase 2 and Phase 4)
  • QA cycles repeat up to 5 times; if the same error persists 3 times, stop and report the fundamental issue
  • Validation requires approval from all reviewers; rejected items get fixed and re-validated
  • Cancel with /cancel at any time; progress is preserved for resume
  • If a deep-interview spec exists, use it as high-clarity phase input instead of re-expanding from scratch
  • If input is too vague for reliable expansion, offer/trigger $deep-interview first
  • Do not enter expansion/planning/execution-heavy phases until pre-context grounding exists; if fast execution is forced, proceed only with explicit risk notes
  • Default to concise, evidence-dense progress and completion reporting unless the user or risk level requires more detail
  • Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints
  • If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the workflow is grounded
  • Continue through clear, low-risk, reversible next steps automatically; ask only when the next step is materially branching, destructive, or preference-dependent </Execution_Policy>
<Steps> 0. **Pre-context Intake (required before Phase 0 starts)**: - Derive a task slug from the request. - Load the latest relevant snapshot from `.omx/context/{slug}-*.md` when available. - If no snapshot exists, create `.omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md` (UTC `YYYYMMDDTHHMMSSZ`) with: - Task statement - Desired outcome - Known facts/evidence - Constraints - Unknowns/open questions - Likely codebase touchpoints - If ambiguity remains high, run `explore` first for brownfield facts, then run `$deep-interview --quick <task>` before proceeding. - Carry the snapshot path into autopilot artifacts/state so all phases share grounded context.
  1. Phase 0 - Expansion: Turn the user's idea into a detailed spec
    • If .omx/specs/deep-interview-*.md exists for this task: reuse it and skip redundant expansion work
    • If prompt is highly vague: route to $deep-interview for Socratic ambiguity-gated clarification
    • Analyst (THOROUGH tier): Extract requirements
    • Architect (THOROUGH tier): Create technical specification
    • Output: .omx/plans/autopilot-spec.md
  2. Phase 1 - Planning: Create an implementation plan from the spec
    • Architect (THOROUGH tier): Create plan (direct mode, no interview)
    • Critic (THOROUGH tier): Validate plan
    • Output: .omx/plans/autopilot-impl.md
  3. Phase 2 - Execution: Implement the plan using Ralph + Ultrawork
    • LOW-tier executor/search roles: Simple tasks
    • STANDARD-tier executor roles: Standard tasks
    • THOROUGH-tier executor/architect roles: Complex tasks
    • Run independent tasks in parallel
  4. Phase 3 - QA: Cycle until all tests pass (UltraQA mode)
    • Build, lint, test, fix failures
    • Repeat up to 5 cycles
    • Stop early if the same error repeats 3 times (indicates a fundamental issue)
  5. Phase 4 - Validation: Multi-perspective review in parallel
    • Architect: Functional completeness
    • Security-reviewer: Vulnerability check
    • Code-reviewer: Quality review
    • All must approve; fix and re-validate on rejection
  6. Phase 5 - Cleanup: Clear all mode state via OMX MCP tools on successful completion
    • state_clear({mode: "autopilot"})
    • state_clear({mode: "ralph"})
    • state_clear({mode: "ultrawork"})
    • state_clear({mode: "ultraqa"})
    • Or run /cancel for clean exit</Steps>

<Tool_Usage>

  • Before first MCP tool use, call ToolSearch("mcp") to discover deferred MCP tools
  • Use ask_codex with agent_role: "architect" for Phase 4 architecture validation
  • Use ask_codex with agent_role: "security-reviewer" for Phase 4 security review
  • Use ask_codex with agent_role: "code-reviewer" for Phase 4 quality review
  • Agents form their own analysis first, then consult Codex for cross-validation
  • If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools or Codex is unavailable, proceed without it -- never block on external tools </Tool_Usage>

State Management

Use omx_state MCP tools for autopilot lifecycle state.

  • On start: state_write({mode: "autopilot", active: true, current_phase: "expansion", started_at: "<now>", state: {context_snapshot_path: "<snapshot-path>"}})
  • On phase transitions: state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "planning"}) state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "execution"}) state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "qa"}) state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "validation"})
  • On completion: state_write({mode: "autopilot", active: false, current_phase: "complete", completed_at: "<now>"})
  • On cancellation/cleanup: run $cancel (which should call state_clear(mode="autopilot"))

Scenario Examples

Good: The user says continue after the workflow already has a clear next step. Continue the current branch of work instead of restarting or re-asking the same question.

Good: The user changes only the output shape or downstream delivery step (for example make a PR). Preserve earlier non-conflicting workflow constraints and apply the update locally.

Bad: The user says continue, and the workflow restarts discovery or stops before the missing verification/evidence is gathered.

<Examples> <Good> User: "autopilot A REST API for a bookstore inventory with CRUD operations using TypeScript" Why good: Specific domain (bookstore), clear features (CRUD), technology constraint (TypeScript). Autopilot has enough context to expand into a full spec. </Good><Good> User: "build me a CLI tool that tracks daily habits with streak counting" Why good: Clear product concept with a specific feature. The "build me" trigger activates autopilot. </Good><Bad> User: "fix the bug in the login page" Why bad: This is a single focused fix, not a multi-phase project. Use direct executor delegation or ralph instead. </Bad><Bad> User: "what are some good approaches for adding caching?" Why bad: This is an exploration/brainstorming request. Respond conversationally or use the plan skill. </Bad> </Examples>

<Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

  • Stop and report when the same QA error persists across 3 cycles (fundamental issue requiring human input)
  • Stop and report when validation keeps failing after 3 re-validation rounds
  • Stop when the user says "stop", "cancel", or "abort"
  • If requirements were too vague and expansion produces an unclear spec, pause and redirect to $deep-interview before proceeding </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

<Final_Checklist>

  • All 5 phases completed (Expansion, Planning, Execution, QA, Validation)
  • All validators approved in Phase 4
  • Tests pass (verified with fresh test run output)
  • Build succeeds (verified with fresh build output)
  • State files cleaned up
  • User informed of completion with summary of what was built </Final_Checklist>
<Advanced> ## Configuration

Optional settings in ~/.codex/config.toml:

[omx.autopilot]
maxIterations = 10
maxQaCycles = 5
maxValidationRounds = 3
pauseAfterExpansion = false
pauseAfterPlanning = false
skipQa = false
skipValidation = false

Resume

If autopilot was cancelled or failed, run /autopilot again to resume from where it stopped.

Recommended Clarity Pipeline

For ambiguous requests, prefer:

deep-interview -> ralplan -> autopilot
  • deep-interview: ambiguity-gated Socratic requirements
  • ralplan: consensus planning (planner/architect/critic)
  • autopilot: execution + QA + validation

Best Practices for Input

  1. Be specific about the domain -- "bookstore" not "store"
  2. Mention key features -- "with CRUD", "with authentication"
  3. Specify constraints -- "using TypeScript", "with PostgreSQL"
  4. Let it run -- avoid interrupting unless truly needed

Pipeline Orchestrator (v0.8+)

Autopilot can be driven by the configurable pipeline orchestrator (src/pipeline/), which sequences stages through a uniform PipelineStage interface:

RALPLAN (consensus planning) -> team-exec (Codex CLI workers) -> ralph-verify (architect verification)

Pipeline configuration options:

[omx.autopilot.pipeline]
maxRalphIterations = 10    # Ralph verification iteration ceiling
workerCount = 2            # Number of Codex CLI team workers
agentType = "executor"     # Agent type for team workers

The pipeline persists state via pipeline-state.json and supports resume from the last incomplete stage. See src/pipeline/orchestrator.ts for the full API.

Troubleshooting

Stuck in a phase? Check TODO list for blocked tasks, run state_read({mode: "autopilot"}), or cancel and resume.

QA cycles exhausted? The same error 3 times indicates a fundamental issue. Review the error pattern; manual intervention may be needed.

Validation keeps failing? Review the specific issues. Requirements may have been too vague -- cancel and provide more detail. </Advanced>

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.