agentleFS
npownpow/claude-skills/autopilot/SKILL.md

autopilot

Skill4 starsChanged 6 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when the user says "autopilot", "build this", "make it", "ship it", "just do it", "do it", "implement this", or gives a vague idea, spec, task list, or bug fix and expects autonomous execution. Handles decomposition, agent coordination, and verification automatically. "build me end to end", "go from idea to code", "do everything", "run this autonomously". Follows the Spec-Driven Development workflow: specify → clarify → plan → tasks → analyze → implement.

74 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use review-bugbot, rename-chat 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.
  • 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

29 rules. 0 are common, 21 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 66 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 21

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 8

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the input. Classify along three axes:

    line 77
  2. Distinctive:

    Fast-path: If scope is "one-file fix" AND clarity is "single task" AND decomposability is "atomic" → skip directly to Phase 3 (Execute …

    line 85
  3. Very specific:

    Create specs/{NNN-feature-name}/ directory.

    line 95
  4. Distinctive:

    Existing spec.md: if the user provides a file already in SDD format, adopt it directly.

    line 101
  5. Very specific:

    Quality validation: after writing spec.md, generate checklists/requirements.md and validate:

    line 111
  6. Distinctive:

    No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) in the spec

    line 112
  7. Distinctive:

    All requirements are testable

    line 113
  8. Distinctive:

    If validation fails, self-correct (max 3 iterations).

    line 117
  9. Very specific:

    If spec.md contains [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers:

    line 123
  10. Distinctive:

    Every task maps to ≥1 requirement (FR-###) or user story.

    line 156
  11. Distinctive:

    No vague tasks ("implement feature") — each must reference specific files/components.

    line 157
  12. Distinctive:

    Read-only cross-artifact validation across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md:

    line 164
  13. Very specific:

    If CRITICAL issues found: auto-fix spec/plan/tasks and re-validate (max 1 reiteration).

    line 175
  14. Very specific:

    Read tasks.md phase structure and [P] markers.

    line 179
  15. Very specific:

    Every routing decision writes to autopilot-{run_id}/routing-manifest.json BEFORE execution:

    line 193
  16. Very specific:

    Run the selected topology, driven by tasks.md:

    line 207
  17. Distinctive:

    After all tasks complete:

    line 221
  18. Distinctive:

    If defects found: fix and re-verify (loop, max 2 QA rounds)

    line 224
  19. Distinctive:

    If clean: proceed to ship

    line 225
  20. Distinctive:

    If code project detected: package with tests, docs, CI config, README

    line 229
  21. Distinctive:

    If report/presentation: generate styled HTML output

    line 230
  22. Distinctive:

    If neither: produce honest completion report

    line 231
  23. Distinctive:

    After ship, run a lightweight retrospect scan:

    line 239
  24. Very specific:

    If qualifying signals found: invoke /retrospect for full enforcement-first analysis

    line 242
  25. Distinctive:

    If none found: skip

    line 243
  26. Distinctive:

    Auto-scale, don't ask: Never ask the user to pick a topology.

    line 291
  27. Distinctive:

    Verify every task: No task is "done" without passing its acceptance criteria from spec.md.

    line 292
  28. Distinctive:

    Honest termination: Use the five labels above.

    line 293
  29. Distinctive:

    Artifacts are traceable: Every task traces to a requirement (FR-###).

    line 296

“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

Autopilot

The unified orchestrator. One skill that auto-scales from a single-agent one-file fix to a multi-agent staged pipeline with parallel fanout. The user never picks a topology — autopilot reads the task and selects one.

Follows the Spec-Driven Development (SDD) workflow: specifications are the primary artifact, code serves the spec. All non-atomic tasks produce structured artifacts in specs/{feature}/ before any code is written.

SDD Artifact Directory

For non-atomic tasks, autopilot creates and maintains:

specs/{NNN-feature-name}/
├── spec.md              # Feature specification (Phase 1a)
├── checklists/          # Quality checklists (Phase 1a)
│   └── requirements.md  # Spec quality validation
├── research.md          # Technical research (Phase 1c)
├── plan.md              # Implementation plan (Phase 1c)
├── data-model.md        # Entity definitions (Phase 1c)
├── contracts/           # API/interface contracts (Phase 1c)
├── quickstart.md        # Validation scenarios (Phase 1c)
└── tasks.md             # Ordered task list (Phase 1d)

Feature numbering is sequential: scan existing specs/ directories, take the next available 3-digit prefix. Feature name is derived from the task description (2-4 word kebab-case slug).

Phases

Phase 0: Task Analysis (always runs, <30s)

Read the input. Classify along three axes:

  1. Clarity: vague idea → partial spec → full spec → single task
  2. Scope: one-file fix → multi-file feature → multi-module project → greenfield repo
  3. Decomposability: atomic (can't split) → sequential (must be ordered) → parallel (independent parts) → mixed

Output: a TaskProfile logged to the user.

Fast-path: If scope is "one-file fix" AND clarity is "single task" AND decomposability is "atomic" → skip directly to Phase 3 (Execute solo). No SDD ceremony for trivial fixes.

Pressure awareness: this skill applies the pressure circuit breakers from _shared/pressure-awareness.md. After 2 retries of the same phase producing no new evidence, escalate rather than retrying.

Phase 1: Spec-Driven Development Workflow (skip if atomic)

The SDD workflow replaces ad-hoc planning with structured, traceable artifacts. Each sub-phase produces files in specs/{feature}/ that gate the next sub-phase.

Phase 1a: Specify — produce spec.md

Create specs/{NNN-feature-name}/ directory. Generate spec.md following the SDD specification format.

Routing by clarity:

  • Vague idea: invoke deep-design inline to stress-test the concept, then distill into spec.md.
  • Partial spec: extract what exists, fill gaps with informed defaults, mark critical unknowns with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] (max 3 markers — only for decisions that significantly impact scope, security, or UX).
  • Full spec: transcribe into the structured spec.md format. Validate completeness.
  • Existing spec.md: if the user provides a file already in SDD format, adopt it directly.

spec.md required sections:

  • User Scenarios & Testing — prioritized user stories (P1, P2, P3) with Given/When/Then acceptance scenarios. Each story must be independently testable.
  • Functional Requirements — FR-001, FR-002, etc. Each must be testable and unambiguous.
  • Success Criteria — SC-001, SC-002, etc. Technology-agnostic, measurable outcomes.
  • Key Entities — if data is involved.
  • Assumptions — reasonable defaults documented here, not asked about.
  • Edge Cases — boundary conditions and error scenarios.

Quality validation: after writing spec.md, generate checklists/requirements.md and validate:

  • No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) in the spec
  • All requirements are testable
  • Success criteria are measurable and technology-agnostic
  • Max 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers (scope > security > UX priority)

If validation fails, self-correct (max 3 iterations). Proceed when clean.

Focus on WHAT and WHY, never HOW. The spec is for stakeholders, not developers. Implementation details belong in plan.md.

Phase 1b: Clarify — resolve ambiguities (conditional)

If spec.md contains [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers:

  • Interactive mode (--interactive): present each as a multiple-choice question with a recommended answer. Max 5 questions, one at a time. Record answers in a ## Clarifications section and update the relevant spec sections.
  • Non-interactive mode (default for autopilot): make informed defaults based on context, industry standards, and common patterns. Document choices in the Assumptions section. Log: "Auto-resolved N clarifications (non-interactive mode)."

Skip entirely if spec has no clarification markers.

Phase 1c: Plan — produce plan.md + supporting artifacts

Invoke deep-plan (Planner → Architect → Critic consensus loop). deep-plan now outputs SDD-compatible artifacts:

  • plan.md — Technical Context (language, deps, storage, testing, platform, constraints), Constitution Check (if /memory/constitution.md exists), Project Structure, Complexity Tracking.
  • research.md — resolved unknowns with Decision / Rationale / Alternatives Considered per item.
  • data-model.md — entities, fields, relationships, validation rules, state transitions.
  • contracts/ — interface contracts appropriate for project type (API endpoints, CLI schemas, library interfaces). Skip for purely internal tools.
  • quickstart.md — key validation scenarios for integration testing.

The Planner/Architect/Critic consensus loop ensures plan quality. See deep-plan skill for the full protocol.

Gate: plan.md must exist and pass Critic approval (or reach max iterations honestly) before proceeding.

Phase 1d: Tasks — produce tasks.md

Generate an ordered task list from the plan and spec:

  • Tasks grouped by user story (from spec.md) to enable independent implementation.
  • Phase structure: Setup → Foundational → User Story 1 (P1) → User Story 2 (P2) → ... → Polish.
  • Format: [ID] [P?] [Story] Description where [P] marks parallelizable tasks.
  • Each task includes exact file paths from plan.md's Project Structure.
  • Checkpoints between phases for independent story validation.
  • Dependencies explicitly stated: foundational tasks block all story work.

Task quality rules:

  • Every task maps to ≥1 requirement (FR-###) or user story.
  • No vague tasks ("implement feature") — each must reference specific files/components.
  • Parallel markers [P] only when tasks touch different files with no shared state.

Phase 1e: Analyze — cross-artifact consistency (conditional)

Runs automatically for --depth=deep. Skipped for --depth=quick.

Read-only cross-artifact validation across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md:

  • Coverage gaps: requirements with zero tasks, tasks with no mapped requirement.
  • Duplication: near-duplicate requirements across artifacts.
  • Ambiguity: vague adjectives without measurable criteria, unresolved placeholders.
  • Terminology drift: same concept named differently across files.
  • Inconsistency: conflicting requirements, task ordering contradictions.
  • Constitution alignment: violations of /memory/constitution.md principles (if exists).

Severity: CRITICAL (blocks implementation) > HIGH > MEDIUM > LOW.

If CRITICAL issues found: auto-fix spec/plan/tasks and re-validate (max 1 reiteration). If still critical after fix attempt, report honestly and proceed with warnings.

Phase 2: Topology Selection (automatic, never user-facing)

Read tasks.md phase structure and [P] markers. Select topology:

ConditionTopologyHow it runs
1 task or atomic fast-pathSoloMain agent executes directly
N independent tasks marked [P], no shared stateFanoutSpawn N agents in parallel, convergence check
N dependent tasks, sequential phasesPipelineExecute in order, each verified before next
Mixed phases with [P] tasks within phasesStaged fanoutPipeline of phases, fanout within each phase
Any topology + source code changes+Review gate4-reviewer panel on modifications

Agent cap: max 8 concurrent agents for fanout. Batch into waves if more.

Routing Decision Manifest

Every routing decision writes to autopilot-{run_id}/routing-manifest.json BEFORE execution:

routing_decisions[]:
  phase: "expand" | "topology"
  chosen: the skill/topology selected
  rejected: alternatives and why ruled out
  trigger: signal that drove the choice
  predicted_outcome: expected result
  confidence: low | medium | high

Phase 3: Execute

Run the selected topology, driven by tasks.md:

  1. Execute — agent implements the task, referencing spec.md and plan.md for context
  2. Verify — run tests, check acceptance criteria from spec.md, lint
  3. If fails — retry with error context (up to 3 attempts per task)
  4. If passes — mark task [X] in tasks.md, unlock dependents

For fanout: convergence checker after all agents complete — detects conflicts, duplicate work, incompatible changes. For pipeline: phase gate requires all tasks in that phase to pass before next phase starts.

Checkpoint validation: at each phase boundary, verify the completed user story works independently (as defined in spec.md's "Independent Test" field).

Phase 4: QA (always runs unless --no-qa)

After all tasks complete:

  • Invoke deep-qa in fix mode on the combined output
  • deep-qa's TESTABILITY dimension includes an empirical mutation-test lane (3-min budget). Surviving mutants with scope: changed surface as testability defects and enter the fix loop.
  • If defects found: fix and re-verify (loop, max 2 QA rounds)
  • If clean: proceed to ship

Phase 5: Ship (conditional)

  • If code project detected: package with tests, docs, CI config, README
  • If report/presentation: generate styled HTML output
  • If neither: produce honest completion report

Output: what was built, what was verified, what's untested, termination label.

Routing verification: compare each Phase 2 routing prediction against actual outcome. Write autopilot-{run_id}/routing-verification.md with predicted vs actual verdicts.

Phase 6: Retrospect (always runs)

After ship, run a lightweight retrospect scan:

  1. Scan for P1-P3 signals (user corrections, self-corrections, structural failures)
  2. Scan for P6 signals (QA-driven patterns): defect clusters suggesting behavioral gaps
  3. If qualifying signals found: invoke /retrospect for full enforcement-first analysis
  4. If none found: skip

Termination labels (honest, exhaustive):

  • completed_verified — all tasks passed verification + QA clean
  • completed_partial — some tasks passed, others failed after retries
  • completed_unverified — execution finished but verification was skipped or inconclusive
  • blocked — cannot proceed (missing credentials, access, unclear requirements)
  • budget_exhausted — hit max retries, max agents, or time limit

Flags

  • --solo — force single-agent execution (skip topology selection)
  • --dry-run — SDD workflow only, don't execute (stops after Phase 1)
  • --no-qa — skip Phase 4 QA pass
  • --interactive — gate at spec review (Phase 1a) and clarification (Phase 1b)
  • --depth=quick — skip specify/clarify, minimal plan, solo topology
  • --depth=deep — full SDD ceremony: specify, clarify, plan, tasks, analyze, QA, ship

Composable Engines (called by autopilot, also standalone)

EngineCalled inStandalone use
deep-designPhase 1a (vague ideas)"design this system"
deep-planPhase 1c (plan + consensus)"plan this work"
deep-qaPhase 4 (QA + fix)"review this artifact"
mutation-testPhase 4 via deep-qa"find test gaps"
deep-ideaPre-Phase 0 (if needed)"generate ideas"
monitorPhase 3 (health checks)"check service health"

What This Absorbed

Former SkillNow handled by
buildAutopilot Phase 0-5 (the whole pipeline)
ship-itPhase 5 (code project packaging)
teamPhase 2 staged topology + review gate
parallel-execPhase 2 fanout topology
loop-until-donePhase 3 per-task verify loop
speckit.specifyPhase 1a (specify)
speckit.clarifyPhase 1b (clarify)
speckit.planPhase 1c (plan)
speckit.tasksPhase 1d (tasks)
speckit.analyzePhase 1e (analyze)
speckit.implementPhase 3 (execute)

Golden Rules

  1. Spec before code. Non-atomic tasks always produce spec.md before any implementation. The spec is the source of truth; code serves the spec.
  2. Auto-scale, don't ask. Never ask the user to pick a topology. Read the task and decide.
  3. Verify every task. No task is "done" without passing its acceptance criteria from spec.md.
  4. Honest termination. Use the five labels above. Never say "looks good" or "mostly done."
  5. Convergence check after fanout. Parallel agents may conflict. Always check before merging.
  6. Phase gates are non-negotiable. spec.md gates plan.md. plan.md gates tasks.md. tasks.md gates execution. No skipping.
  7. Artifacts are traceable. Every task traces to a requirement (FR-###). Every requirement traces to a user story. Untraceable work is rejected.

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.