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
- zahidakhyar/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- kimkon1011/orgiast-claude-rulestheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lohi-ai/babysittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- paramcodes/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jinjan21-lgtm/autopilottheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ourostack/ouroboros-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
0mlkrizzz655335vSkillreview-bugbot
缺陷导向代码审查。用 Bugbot 子代理找 bug。
Also in 3 projects that use this
0mlkrizzz655335vSkillrename-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
Tsumugii24Skillsplit-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
PandelisZSkillupdate-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
32103210Skillmigrate-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
32103210Skillupdate-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
Other versions74 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 4
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41k29% same
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41k29% same
- Gopyr/gopyr-skills-hub★ 017% same
- Jurel89/copilot-omni★ 012% same
Wrote their own version · 70
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex★ 34ksame name
- SethGammon/Citadel★ 927same name
- H-mmer/pentest-agents★ 815same name
- Harry-kp/vortix★ 757same name
- nick-vels/skills★ 599same name
- yan-labs/yan-skills★ 232same name
- kentcdodds/kcd-skills★ 64same name
- Kanevry/session-orchestrator★ 53same name
- jantichy/claude★ 45same name
- nnguyenquangg/claude-code-spec-driven-development★ 22same name
60 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 repository119 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- templates/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- accessibilitySkill
- frontend-designSkill
- python-background-jobsSkill
- python-executorSkill
- python-testing-patternsSkill
- seoSkill
- ai-slop-cleanerSkill
- analyzeSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- ask-claudeSkill
- ask-geminiSkill
- browser-testing-with-devtoolsSkill
- build-fixSkill
- cancelSkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- clawd-change-workflowSkill
- code-review-and-qualitySkill
- code-reviewSkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- configure-notificationsSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- deep-interviewSkill
- deepsearchSkill
- deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- doctorSkill
- documentation-and-adrsSkill
- ecomodeSkill
- frontend-ui-engineeringSkill
- frontend-ui-uxSkill
- git-masterSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- helpSkill
- hudSkill
- idea-refineSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- intent_routerSkill
- keyword_registrySkill
- mode_stateSkill
- noteSkill
- omx-setupSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- pipeline_orchestratorSkill
- pipelineSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- planSkill
- ralph-initSkill
- ralph_loopSkill
- ralphSkill
- ralplanSkill
- android-reverse-engineeringSkill
- api-securitySkill
- apk-reverseSkill
- attack-chainSkill
- binary-diffSkill
- browser-automationSkill
- browser-extension-reverseSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Distinctive: line 46
If a deep-interview spec exists, use it as high-clarity phase input instead of re-expanding from scratch
- Very specific: line 47
If input is too vague for reliable expansion, offer/trigger $deep-interview first
- Very specific: line 48
Do not enter expansion/planning/execution-heavy phases until pre-context grounding exists.
- Distinctive: line 49
Default to concise, evidence-dense progress and completion reporting unless the user or risk level requires more detail
- Distinctive: line 50
Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints
- Distinctive: line 51
If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the workflow is …
- Very specific: line 59
If no snapshot exists, create .omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md (UTC YYYYMMDDTHHMMSSZ) with:
- Very specific: line 66
If ambiguity remains high, run explore first for brownfield facts, then run $deep-interview --quick <task> before proceeding.
- Very specific: line 70
If .omx/specs/deep-interview-*.md exists for this task: reuse it and skip redundant expansion work
- Very specific: line 71
If prompt is highly vague: route to $deep-interview for Socratic ambiguity-gated clarification
- Distinctive: line 76
Phase 1 - Planning: Create an implementation plan from the spec
- Distinctive: line 85
Run independent tasks in parallel
- Distinctive: line 90
Stop early if the same error repeats 3 times (indicates a fundamental issue)
- Distinctive: line 96
All must approve; fix and re-validate on rejection
- Very specific: line 107
Before first MCP tool use, call ToolSearch("mcp") to discover deferred MCP tools
- Very specific: line 108
Use ask_codex with agent_role: "architect" for Phase 4 architecture validation
- Very specific: line 109
Use ask_codex with agent_role: "security-reviewer" for Phase 4 security review
- Very specific: line 110
Use ask_codex with agent_role: "code-reviewer" for Phase 4 quality review
- Distinctive: line 112
If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools or Codex is unavailable, proceed without it -- never block on external tools </Tool_Usage>
- Very specific: line 117
Use omx_state MCP tools for autopilot lifecycle state.
- Distinctive: line 163
Stop and report when the same QA error persists across 3 cycles (fundamental issue requiring human input)
- Distinctive: line 164
Stop and report when validation keeps failing after 3 re-validation rounds
- Distinctive: line 165
Stop when the user says "stop", "cancel", or "abort"
- Very specific: line 166
If requirements were too vague and expansion produces an unclear spec, pause and redirect to $deep-interview before proceeding …
- Very specific: line 196
If autopilot was cancelled or failed, run /autopilot again to resume from where it stopped.
- Very specific: line 240
Stuck in a phase?: Check TODO list for blocked tasks, run state_read({mode: "autopilot"}), or cancel and resume.
“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.
Files
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
planskill instead - User says "just explain", "draft only", or "what would you suggest" -- respond conversationally
- User wants a single focused code change -- use
ralphor 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
/cancelat 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
$deep-interviewfirst - Do not enter expansion/planning/execution-heavy phases until pre-context grounding exists; if fast execution is forced, proceed only with explicit risk notes
- Default to concise, evidence-dense progress and completion reporting unless the user or risk level requires more detail
- Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints
- If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the workflow is grounded
- Continue through clear, low-risk, reversible next steps automatically; ask only when the next step is materially branching, destructive, or preference-dependent </Execution_Policy>
<Steps>
0. **Pre-context Intake (required before Phase 0 starts)**:
- Derive a task slug from the request.
- Load the latest relevant snapshot from `.omx/context/{slug}-*.md` when available.
- If no snapshot exists, create `.omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md` (UTC `YYYYMMDDTHHMMSSZ`) with:
- Task statement
- Desired outcome
- Known facts/evidence
- Constraints
- Unknowns/open questions
- Likely codebase touchpoints
- If ambiguity remains high, run `explore` first for brownfield facts, then run `$deep-interview --quick <task>` before proceeding.
- Carry the snapshot path into autopilot artifacts/state so all phases share grounded context.- Phase 0 - Expansion: Turn the user's idea into a detailed spec
- If
.omx/specs/deep-interview-*.mdexists for this task: reuse it and skip redundant expansion work - If prompt is highly vague: route to
$deep-interviewfor Socratic ambiguity-gated clarification - Analyst (THOROUGH tier): Extract requirements
- Architect (THOROUGH tier): Create technical specification
- Output:
.omx/plans/autopilot-spec.md
- If
- 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
- 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
- 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)
- 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
- 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
/cancelfor clean exit</Steps>
<Tool_Usage>
- Before first MCP tool use, call
ToolSearch("mcp")to discover deferred MCP tools - Use
ask_codexwithagent_role: "architect"for Phase 4 architecture validation - Use
ask_codexwithagent_role: "security-reviewer"for Phase 4 security review - Use
ask_codexwithagent_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 callstate_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-interviewbefore 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>
## ConfigurationOptional settings in ~/.codex/config.toml:
[omx.autopilot]
maxIterations = 10
maxQaCycles = 5
maxValidationRounds = 3
pauseAfterExpansion = false
pauseAfterPlanning = false
skipQa = false
skipValidation = falseResume
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 -> autopilotdeep-interview: ambiguity-gated Socratic requirementsralplan: consensus planning (planner/architect/critic)autopilot: execution + QA + validation
Best Practices for Input
- Be specific about the domain -- "bookstore" not "store"
- Mention key features -- "with CRUD", "with authentication"
- Specify constraints -- "using TypeScript", "with PostgreSQL"
- 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 workersThe 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>
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.

