ralph
Skill5 starsChanged 12 days agoMITView on GitHub
Self-referential loop until task completion with architect verification
- Installs packages
45 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- lhbsaa/apex-unifiedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecodetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- newsc2/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- jellydn/my-ai-toolstheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- vijpatel7/favorite_skills_and_pluginstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- richardwu/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use compound-engineering, deep-dive and 2 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.
JokerRunSkillcompound-engineering
Compound Engineering workflow for AI-assisted development. Use when planning features, executing work, reviewing code, or codifying learnings. Follows the Plan → Work → Review → Compound loop where each unit of engineering makes subsequent work easier. Triggers on: plan this feature, implement this, review this code, compound learnings, create implementation plan, systematic development.
Also in 3 projects that use this
buddyhSkilldeep-dive
Deep dive on any topic. Decomposes into subtopics, researches each in parallel with thorough source gathering, then synthesizes into a comprehensive report (4,000-10,000+ words, 40-100+ sources). Scales depth dynamically based on topic complexity. Use when asked for a deep dive, deep research, comprehensive analysis, or thorough investigation of a topic.
Also in 3 projects that use this
sahinSkillexecute
Also in 3 projects that use this
Saik0sSkillbrowser-use
AI-driven browser automation via Model Context Protocol
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions45 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- Gopyr/gopyr-skills-hub★ 012% same
Wrote their own version · 44
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex★ 34ksame name
- snarktank/ralph★ 22ksame name
- Q00/ouroboros★ 6.3ksame name
- zereight/gitlab-mcp★ 2.1ksame name
- srid/emanote★ 963same name
- opentabs-dev/opentabs★ 926same name
- first-fluke/fullstack-starter★ 226same name
- team-attention/hoyeon★ 173same name
34 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
- autopilotSkill
- 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
- 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
39 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 24 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 41 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
24
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 34
Use run_in_background: true for long operations (installs, builds, test suites)
- Very specific: line 35
Always pass the model parameter explicitly when delegating to agents
- Very specific: line 36
Read docs/shared/agent-tiers.md before first delegation to select correct agent tiers
- Distinctive: line 38
Default to concise, evidence-dense progress and completion reporting unless the user or risk level requires more detail
- Distinctive: line 39
Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints
- Distinctive: line 40
If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the execution …
- Distinctive: line 54
If an existing relevant snapshot is available, reuse it and record the path in Ralph state.
- Very specific: line 55
If request ambiguity is high, gather brownfield facts first.
- Distinctive: line 56
Do not begin Ralph execution work (delegation, implementation, or verification loops) until snapshot grounding exists.
- Distinctive: line 57
Review progress: Check TODO list and any prior iteration state
- Distinctive: line 63
When Ralph is entered as a ralplan follow-up, start from the approved available-agent-types roster and make the delegation plan explicit: …
- Very specific: line 66
Run $visual-verdict before every next edit.
- Very specific: line 69
Default pass threshold: score >= 90.
- Very specific: line 70
URL-based cloning tasks: When the task description contains a target URL (e.g., "clone https://example.com"), invoke $web-clone instead of …
- Very specific: line 82
After Step 7 passes, run oh-my-codex:ai-slop-cleaner on all files changed during the Ralph session.
- Very specific: line 84
Run the cleaner in standard mode (not --review).
- Very specific: line 85
If the prompt contains --no-deslop, skip Step 7.5 entirely and proceed with the most recent successful verification evidence.
- Very specific: line 87
After the deslop pass, re-run all tests/build/lint and read the output to confirm they still pass.
- Distinctive: line 88
If post-deslop regression fails, roll back cleaner changes or fix and retry.
- Very specific: line 89
Do not proceed to completion until post-deslop regression is green (unless --no-deslop explicitly skipped the deslop pass).
- Very specific: line 90
On approval: Run /cancel to cleanly exit and clean up all state files
- Very specific: line 95
Before first MCP tool use, call ToolSearch("mcp") to discover deferred MCP tools
- Very specific: line 96
Use ask_codex with agent_role: "architect" for verification cross-checks when changes are security-sensitive, architectural, or involve …
- Distinctive: line 98
If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools or Codex is unavailable, proceed with architect agent verification alone -- never block on external tools
- Very specific: line 99
Use state_write / state_read for ralph mode state persistence between iterations
- Very specific: line 105
Use the omx_state MCP server tools (state_write, state_read, state_clear) for Ralph lifecycle state.
- Distinctive: line 168
Stop and report when a fundamental blocker requires user input (missing credentials, unclear requirements, external service down)
- Very specific: line 169
Stop when the user says "stop", "cancel", or "abort" -- run /cancel
- Distinctive: line 171
If architect rejects verification, fix the issues and re-verify (do not stop)
- Distinctive: line 172
If the same issue recurs across 3+ iterations, report it as a potential fundamental problem </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
- Very specific: line 190
When the user provides the --prd flag, initialize a Product Requirements Document before starting the ralph loop.
- Very specific: line 193
Check if {{PROMPT}} contains --prd or --PRD.
- Very specific: line 196
Check if {{PROMPT}} contains --no-deslop.
- Very specific: line 197
If --no-deslop is present, skip the deslop pass entirely after Step 7 and continue using the latest successful pre-deslop verification …
- Distinctive: line 208
Run deep-interview in quick mode before creating PRD artifacts:
- Distinctive: line 212
Create canonical PRD/progress artifacts:
- Very specific: line 245
If .omx/prd.json exists and canonical PRD is absent, migrate one-way into .omx/plans/prd-{slug}.md.
- Very specific: line 246
If .omx/progress.txt exists and canonical progress ledger is absent, import one-way into .omx/state/{scope}/ralph-progress.json.
- Distinctive: line 247
Keep legacy files unchanged for one release cycle.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 41 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
[RALPH + ULTRAWORK - ITERATION {{ITERATION}}/{{MAX}}]
Your previous attempt did not output the completion promise. Continue working on the task.
<Purpose>
Ralph is a persistence loop that keeps working on a task until it is fully complete and architect-verified. It wraps ultrawork's parallel execution with session persistence, automatic retry on failure, and mandatory verification before completion.
</Purpose><Use_When>
- Task requires guaranteed completion with verification (not just "do your best")
- User says "ralph", "don't stop", "must complete", "finish this", or "keep going until done"
- Work may span multiple iterations and needs persistence across retries
- Task benefits from parallel execution with architect sign-off at the end </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- User wants a full autonomous pipeline from idea to code -- use
autopilotinstead - User wants to explore or plan before committing -- use
planskill instead - User wants a quick one-shot fix -- delegate directly to an executor agent
- User wants manual control over completion -- use
ultraworkdirectly </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Why_This_Exists> Complex tasks often fail silently: partial implementations get declared "done", tests get skipped, edge cases get forgotten. Ralph prevents this by looping until work is genuinely complete, requiring fresh verification evidence before allowing completion, and using tiered architect review to confirm quality. </Why_This_Exists>
<Execution_Policy>
- Fire independent agent calls simultaneously -- never wait sequentially for independent work
- Use
run_in_background: truefor long operations (installs, builds, test suites) - Always pass the
modelparameter explicitly when delegating to agents - Read
docs/shared/agent-tiers.mdbefore first delegation to select correct agent tiers - Deliver the full implementation: no scope reduction, no partial completion, no deleting tests to make them pass
- 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 execution loop 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 planning/execution loop starts)**:
- Assemble or load a context snapshot at `.omx/context/{task-slug}-{timestamp}.md` (UTC `YYYYMMDDTHHMMSSZ`).
- Minimum snapshot fields:
- task statement
- desired outcome
- known facts/evidence
- constraints
- unknowns/open questions
- likely codebase touchpoints
- If an existing relevant snapshot is available, reuse it and record the path in Ralph state.
- If request ambiguity is high, gather brownfield facts first. When session guidance enables `USE_OMX_EXPLORE_CMD`, prefer `omx explore` for simple read-only repository lookups with narrow, concrete prompts; otherwise use the richer normal explore path. Then run `$deep-interview --quick <task>` to close critical gaps.
- Do not begin Ralph execution work (delegation, implementation, or verification loops) until snapshot grounding exists. If forced to proceed quickly, note explicit risk tradeoffs.
1. **Review progress**: Check TODO list and any prior iteration state
2. **Continue from where you left off**: Pick up incomplete tasks
3. **Delegate in parallel**: Route tasks to specialist agents at appropriate tiers
- Simple lookups: LOW tier -- "What does this function return?"
- Standard work: STANDARD tier -- "Add error handling to this module"
- Complex analysis: THOROUGH tier -- "Debug this race condition"
- When Ralph is entered as a ralplan follow-up, start from the approved **available-agent-types roster** and make the delegation plan explicit: implementation lane, evidence/regression lane, and final sign-off lane using only known agent types
4. **Run long operations in background**: Builds, installs, test suites use `run_in_background: true`
5. **Visual task gate (when screenshot/reference images are present)**:
- Run `$visual-verdict` **before every next edit**.
- Require structured JSON output: `score`, `verdict`, `category_match`, `differences[]`, `suggestions[]`, `reasoning`.
- Persist verdict to `.omx/state/{scope}/ralph-progress.json` including numeric + qualitative feedback.
- Default pass threshold: `score >= 90`.
- **URL-based cloning tasks**: When the task description contains a target URL (e.g., "clone https://example.com"), invoke `$web-clone` instead of `$visual-verdict`. The web-clone skill handles the full extraction → generation → verification pipeline and uses `$visual-verdict` internally for visual scoring.
6. **Verify completion with fresh evidence**:
a. Identify what command proves the task is complete
b. Run verification (test, build, lint)
c. Read the output -- confirm it actually passed
d. Check: zero pending/in_progress TODO items
7. **Architect verification** (tiered):
- <5 files, <100 lines with full tests: STANDARD tier minimum (architect role)
- Standard changes: STANDARD tier (architect role)
- >20 files or security/architectural changes: THOROUGH tier (architect role)
- Ralph floor: always at least STANDARD, even for small changes
7.5 **Mandatory Deslop Pass**:
- After Step 7 passes, run `oh-my-codex:ai-slop-cleaner` on **all files changed during the Ralph session**.
- Scope the cleaner to **changed files only**; do not widen the pass beyond Ralph-owned edits.
- Run the cleaner in **standard mode** (not `--review`).
- If the prompt contains `--no-deslop`, skip Step 7.5 entirely and proceed with the most recent successful verification evidence.
7.6 **Regression Re-verification**:
- After the deslop pass, re-run all tests/build/lint and read the output to confirm they still pass.
- If post-deslop regression fails, roll back cleaner changes or fix and retry. Then rerun Step 7.5 and Step 7.6 until the regression is green.
- Do not proceed to completion until post-deslop regression is green (unless `--no-deslop` explicitly skipped the deslop pass).
8. **On approval**: Run `/cancel` to cleanly exit and clean up all state files
9. **On rejection**: Fix the issues raised, then re-verify at the same tier
</Steps><Tool_Usage>
- Before first MCP tool use, call
ToolSearch("mcp")to discover deferred MCP tools - Use
ask_codexwithagent_role: "architect"for verification cross-checks when changes are security-sensitive, architectural, or involve complex multi-system integration - Skip Codex consultation for simple feature additions, well-tested changes, or time-critical verification
- If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools or Codex is unavailable, proceed with architect agent verification alone -- never block on external tools
- Use
state_write/state_readfor ralph mode state persistence between iterations - Persist context snapshot path in Ralph mode state so later phases and agents share the same grounding context </Tool_Usage>
State Management
Use the omx_state MCP server tools (state_write, state_read, state_clear) for Ralph lifecycle state.
- On start:
state_write({mode: "ralph", active: true, iteration: 1, max_iterations: 10, current_phase: "executing", started_at: "<now>", state: {context_snapshot_path: "<snapshot-path>"}}) - On each iteration:
state_write({mode: "ralph", iteration: <current>, current_phase: "executing"}) - On verification/fix transition:
state_write({mode: "ralph", current_phase: "verifying"})orstate_write({mode: "ralph", current_phase: "fixing"}) - On completion:
state_write({mode: "ralph", active: false, current_phase: "complete", completed_at: "<now>"}) - On cancellation/cleanup:
run
$cancel(which should callstate_clear(mode="ralph"))
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>
Correct parallel delegation:
```
delegate(role="executor", tier="LOW", task="Add type export for UserConfig")
delegate(role="executor", tier="STANDARD", task="Implement the caching layer for API responses")
delegate(role="executor", tier="THOROUGH", task="Refactor auth module to support OAuth2 flow")
```
Why good: Three independent tasks fired simultaneously at appropriate tiers.
</Good><Good>
Correct verification before completion:
```
1. Run: npm test → Output: "42 passed, 0 failed"
2. Run: npm run build → Output: "Build succeeded"
3. Run: lsp_diagnostics → Output: 0 errors
4. Delegate to architect at STANDARD tier → Verdict: "APPROVED"
5. Run /cancel
```
Why good: Fresh evidence at each step, architect verification, then clean exit.
</Good><Bad>
Claiming completion without verification:
"All the changes look good, the implementation should work correctly. Task complete."
Why bad: Uses "should" and "look good" -- no fresh test/build output, no architect verification.
</Bad><Bad>
Sequential execution of independent tasks:
```
delegate(executor, LOW, "Add type export") → wait →
delegate(executor, STANDARD, "Implement caching") → wait →
delegate(executor, THOROUGH, "Refactor auth")
```
Why bad: These are independent tasks that should run in parallel, not sequentially.
</Bad>
</Examples><Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
- Stop and report when a fundamental blocker requires user input (missing credentials, unclear requirements, external service down)
- Stop when the user says "stop", "cancel", or "abort" -- run
/cancel - Continue working when the hook system sends "The boulder never stops" -- this means the iteration continues
- If architect rejects verification, fix the issues and re-verify (do not stop)
- If the same issue recurs across 3+ iterations, report it as a potential fundamental problem </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
<Final_Checklist>
- All requirements from the original task are met (no scope reduction)
- Zero pending or in_progress TODO items
- Fresh test run output shows all tests pass
- Fresh build output shows success
- lsp_diagnostics shows 0 errors on affected files
- Architect verification passed (STANDARD tier minimum)
- ai-slop-cleaner pass completed on changed files (or --no-deslop specified)
- Post-deslop regression tests pass
/cancelrun for clean state cleanup </Final_Checklist>
<Advanced>
## PRD Mode (Optional)When the user provides the --prd flag, initialize a Product Requirements Document before starting the ralph loop.
Detecting PRD Mode
Check if {{PROMPT}} contains --prd or --PRD.
Detecting --no-deslop
Check if {{PROMPT}} contains --no-deslop.
If --no-deslop is present, skip the deslop pass entirely after Step 7 and continue using the latest successful pre-deslop verification evidence.
Visual Reference Flags (Optional)
Ralph execution supports visual reference flags for screenshot tasks:
- Repeatable image inputs:
-i <image-path>(can be used multiple times) - Image directory input:
--images-dir <directory>
Example:
ralph -i refs/hn.png -i refs/hn-item.png --images-dir ./screenshots "match HackerNews layout"
PRD Workflow
- Run deep-interview in quick mode before creating PRD artifacts:
- Execute:
$deep-interview --quick <task> - Complete a compact requirements pass (context, goals, scope, constraints, validation)
- Persist interview output to
.omx/interviews/{slug}-{timestamp}.md
- Execute:
- Create canonical PRD/progress artifacts:
- PRD:
.omx/plans/prd-{slug}.md - Progress ledger:
.omx/state/{scope}/ralph-progress.json(session scope when available, else root scope)
- PRD:
- Parse the task (everything after
--prdflag) - Break down into user stories:
{
"project": "[Project Name]",
"branchName": "ralph/[feature-name]",
"description": "[Feature description]",
"userStories": [
{
"id": "US-001",
"title": "[Short title]",
"description": "As a [user], I want to [action] so that [benefit].",
"acceptanceCriteria": ["Criterion 1", "Typecheck passes"],
"priority": 1,
"passes": false
}
]
}- Initialize canonical progress ledger at
.omx/state/{scope}/ralph-progress.json - Guidelines: right-sized stories (one session each), verifiable criteria, independent stories, priority order (foundational work first)
- Proceed to normal ralph loop using user stories as the task list
Example
User input: --prd build a todo app with React and TypeScript
Workflow: Detect flag, extract task, create .omx/plans/prd-{slug}.md, create .omx/state/{scope}/ralph-progress.json, begin ralph loop.
Legacy compatibility
- If
.omx/prd.jsonexists and canonical PRD is absent, migrate one-way into.omx/plans/prd-{slug}.md. - If
.omx/progress.txtexists and canonical progress ledger is absent, import one-way into.omx/state/{scope}/ralph-progress.json. - Keep legacy files unchanged for one release cycle.
Background Execution Rules
Run in background (run_in_background: true):
- Package installation (npm install, pip install, cargo build)
- Build processes (make, project build commands)
- Test suites
- Docker operations (docker build, docker pull)
Run blocking (foreground):
- Quick status checks (git status, ls, pwd)
- File reads and edits
- Simple commands
</Advanced>
Original task: {{PROMPT}}
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.

