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
- 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 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.
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 · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 74
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- 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
64 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 repository57 other files it gives its agents.
- build-python-librarySkill
- build-temporalSkill
- canon-design-reviewSkill
- canon-pr-reviewSkill
- canon-reviewSkill
- ccr-modelsSkill
- ccr-runSkill
- chartSkill
- ci-health-reportSkill
- code-quality-trendsSkill
- competitive-matrixSkill
- councilSkill
- create-skillSkill
- deep-debug-ensemble-v1Skill
- deep-debugSkill
- deep-designSkill
- deep-ideaSkill
- deep-planSkill
- deep-qa-ensemble-v1Skill
- deep-qaSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dependency-auditSkill
- deploy-status-reportSkill
- develop-board-gameSkill
- diagramSkill
- docxSkill
- dora-lite-reportSkill
- find-skillSkill
- flaky-test-diagnoserSkill
- gap-finderSkill
- gen-crash-testSkill
- gen-smokeSkill
- goal-managerSkill
- init-github-repoSkill
- loop-until-doneSkill
- magic-fetchSkill
- ml-pipeline-reportSkill
- monitorSkill
- napSkill
- pipeline-health-reportSkill
- platform-friction-detectorSkill
- pptxSkill
- prod-readinessSkill
- prompt-clash-ensembleSkill
- prompt-clashSkill
- retrospectSkill
- slack-digestSkill
- slidesSkill
- specSkill
- sprint-retroSkill
- tableSkill
- team-temporalSkill
- timelineSkill
- update-stop-gateSkill
- user-activity-reportSkill
- vc-gauntletSkill
- xlsxSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 77
Read the input. Classify along three axes:
- Distinctive: line 85
Fast-path: If scope is "one-file fix" AND clarity is "single task" AND decomposability is "atomic" → skip directly to Phase 3 (Execute …
- Very specific: line 95
Create specs/{NNN-feature-name}/ directory.
- Distinctive: line 101
Existing spec.md: if the user provides a file already in SDD format, adopt it directly.
- Very specific: line 111
Quality validation: after writing spec.md, generate checklists/requirements.md and validate:
- Distinctive: line 112
No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) in the spec
- Distinctive: line 113
All requirements are testable
- Distinctive: line 117
If validation fails, self-correct (max 3 iterations).
- Very specific: line 123
If spec.md contains [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers:
- Distinctive: line 156
Every task maps to ≥1 requirement (FR-###) or user story.
- Distinctive: line 157
No vague tasks ("implement feature") — each must reference specific files/components.
- Distinctive: line 164
Read-only cross-artifact validation across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md:
- Very specific: line 175
If CRITICAL issues found: auto-fix spec/plan/tasks and re-validate (max 1 reiteration).
- Very specific: line 179
Read tasks.md phase structure and [P] markers.
- Very specific: line 193
Every routing decision writes to autopilot-{run_id}/routing-manifest.json BEFORE execution:
- Very specific: line 207
Run the selected topology, driven by tasks.md:
- Distinctive: line 221
After all tasks complete:
- Distinctive: line 224
If defects found: fix and re-verify (loop, max 2 QA rounds)
- Distinctive: line 225
If clean: proceed to ship
- Distinctive: line 229
If code project detected: package with tests, docs, CI config, README
- Distinctive: line 230
If report/presentation: generate styled HTML output
- Distinctive: line 231
If neither: produce honest completion report
- Distinctive: line 239
After ship, run a lightweight retrospect scan:
- Very specific: line 242
If qualifying signals found: invoke /retrospect for full enforcement-first analysis
- Distinctive: line 243
If none found: skip
- Distinctive: line 291
Auto-scale, don't ask: Never ask the user to pick a topology.
- Distinctive: line 292
Verify every task: No task is "done" without passing its acceptance criteria from spec.md.
- Distinctive: line 293
Honest termination: Use the five labels above.
- Distinctive: line 296
Artifacts are traceable: Every task traces to a requirement (FR-###).
“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
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:
- Clarity: vague idea → partial spec → full spec → single task
- Scope: one-file fix → multi-file feature → multi-module project → greenfield repo
- 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## Clarificationssection 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.mdexists), 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] Descriptionwhere[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.mdprinciples (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:
| Condition | Topology | How it runs |
| 1 task or atomic fast-path | Solo | Main agent executes directly |
| N independent tasks marked [P], no shared state | Fanout | Spawn N agents in parallel, convergence check |
| N dependent tasks, sequential phases | Pipeline | Execute in order, each verified before next |
| Mixed phases with [P] tasks within phases | Staged fanout | Pipeline of phases, fanout within each phase |
| Any topology + source code changes | +Review gate | 4-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 | highPhase 3: Execute
Run the selected topology, driven by tasks.md:
- Execute — agent implements the task, referencing spec.md and plan.md for context
- Verify — run tests, check acceptance criteria from spec.md, lint
- If fails — retry with error context (up to 3 attempts per task)
- 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: changedsurface 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:
- Scan for P1-P3 signals (user corrections, self-corrections, structural failures)
- Scan for P6 signals (QA-driven patterns): defect clusters suggesting behavioral gaps
- If qualifying signals found: invoke
/retrospectfor full enforcement-first analysis - If none found: skip
Termination labels (honest, exhaustive):
completed_verified— all tasks passed verification + QA cleancompleted_partial— some tasks passed, others failed after retriescompleted_unverified— execution finished but verification was skipped or inconclusiveblocked— 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)
| Engine | Called in | Standalone use |
| deep-design | Phase 1a (vague ideas) | "design this system" |
| deep-plan | Phase 1c (plan + consensus) | "plan this work" |
| deep-qa | Phase 4 (QA + fix) | "review this artifact" |
| mutation-test | Phase 4 via deep-qa | "find test gaps" |
| deep-idea | Pre-Phase 0 (if needed) | "generate ideas" |
| monitor | Phase 3 (health checks) | "check service health" |
What This Absorbed
| Former Skill | Now handled by |
| build | Autopilot Phase 0-5 (the whole pipeline) |
| ship-it | Phase 5 (code project packaging) |
| team | Phase 2 staged topology + review gate |
| parallel-exec | Phase 2 fanout topology |
| loop-until-done | Phase 3 per-task verify loop |
| speckit.specify | Phase 1a (specify) |
| speckit.clarify | Phase 1b (clarify) |
| speckit.plan | Phase 1c (plan) |
| speckit.tasks | Phase 1d (tasks) |
| speckit.analyze | Phase 1e (analyze) |
| speckit.implement | Phase 3 (execute) |
Golden Rules
- Spec before code. Non-atomic tasks always produce spec.md before any implementation. The spec is the source of truth; code serves the spec.
- Auto-scale, don't ask. Never ask the user to pick a topology. Read the task and decide.
- Verify every task. No task is "done" without passing its acceptance criteria from spec.md.
- Honest termination. Use the five labels above. Never say "looks good" or "mostly done."
- Convergence check after fanout. Parallel agents may conflict. Always check before merging.
- Phase gates are non-negotiable. spec.md gates plan.md. plan.md gates tasks.md. tasks.md gates execution. No skipping.
- Artifacts are traceable. Every task traces to a requirement (FR-###). Every requirement traces to a user story. Untraceable work is rejected.
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.

