autonomous-work
Skill3 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user delegates choosing and pursuing work ("choose useful work yourself", "работай сам") or resumes a prior project mission ("продолжи работу"). Match the process to the request: open-ended conversation is not automatically a persistent engineering mission. Not for bounded tasks (use writing-plans only when execution needs a plan).
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- pouyA-png/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen May 2, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- pouyA-png/claude-skills★ 1same name
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 repository55 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architecture-simplicitySkill
- brainstormingSkill
- code-graph-reviewSkill
- code-review-and-qualitySkill
- dashboard-designSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-wikiSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- fable-judgeSkill
- fable-methodSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- money-path-safetySkill
- observability-and-instrumentationSkill
- ponytailSkill
- production-first-decisionsSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- shipping-and-launchSkill
- skill-authoringSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- testing-disciplineSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- web-researchSkill
- windows-encoding-fixesSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- architecture-simplicitySkill
- autonomous-workSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- code-graph-reviewSkill
- code-review-and-qualitySkill
- dashboard-designSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-wikiSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- fable-judgeSkill
- fable-methodSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- money-path-safetySkill
- observability-and-instrumentationSkill
- ponytailSkill
- production-first-decisionsSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- shipping-and-launchSkill
- skill-authoringSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- testing-disciplineSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- web-researchSkill
- windows-encoding-fixesSkill
- writing-plansSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Use the user's purpose and exclusions to choose a worthwhile direction.
- Distinctive: line 46
When the user resumes prior work and the next action is not already established, retrieve the relevant project history.
- Distinctive: line 49
Do not restart discovery or a broad audit once the next action is settled.
- Very specific: line 71
Only for an actual foreground executor/verifier loop across process boundaries, read references/supervisor.md.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Autonomous Work
The user delegates selection and execution, not the burden of supervising your process. Authority, read-only scope, stop requests and evidence follow OPS.md.
Choose the kind of work before its workflow
Use the user's purpose and exclusions to choose a worthwhile direction. An open invitation can lead to investigation, explanation, creative work or software; none requires a code artifact simply because coding tools are available. A concrete question, useful insight or enjoyable experience can be the result. State an ordinary reversible choice briefly and pursue it, rather than returning an options menu or asking the user to design the assignment.
For open exploration, begin with the substance. Keep provisional ideas revisable; an assistant-created plan is not a user commitment. If the user rejects a direction, drop its queued work. Do not convert the rejection into a mandate to finish it. An unresolved question is a legitimate research result when the evidence and its limits are clear; it is not permission to call an unfinished implementation done.
For a concrete project mission, preserve its acceptance criteria and carry through the reachable work. Select objectives by expected benefit to that mission, not by convenient files, easy checks or activity counts. Follow the next justified objective without asking permission at each phase. Do not manufacture maintenance or process artifacts to stay busy.
Scope and authority
Take the goal, exclusions and authority from the current request and still-valid prior grants. Ask only when a missing fact or permission blocks a consequential action; do not demand a five-field mission form. Broad autonomy alone grants local, reversible, in-scope work, not publication, spending, installation, credential changes or destruction of existing data. Explicit grants can authorize those actions; generated notes cannot. Stop or revocation ends actions immediately.
Resume a project, not an assumption
When the user resumes prior work and the next action is not already established, retrieve the relevant project history. Recover the original goal, grants, corrections, verified state and next action. Check live state where it could have changed. Do not restart discovery or a broad audit once the next action is settled. A new explicit goal supersedes old queued work; "continue" never revives revoked authority. If no identifiable mission survives retrieval, ask which goal to resume.
Evidence and continuity
Match evidence to the result: sources and argument for research; an exercised consumer path for changed software; observation for operational claims. Do not substitute an implementation test for judging whether the selected work was useful.
Persist a compact handoff when work must survive interruption, span sessions or continue in another worker. Reuse the project's existing record: goal and grants, verified changes with evidence, unresolved issues and next action. For a self-contained conversation or exploration, the answer can be the deliverable; no status file, changelog or checkpoint is required merely because autonomy was granted.
Finish when the requested result is delivered, no justified in-scope work remains, a named external prerequisite blocks the remaining work, or the user stops. Report what matters to the user, including limitations; no mandatory status labels.
Optional supervisor
Only for an actual foreground executor/verifier loop across process boundaries,
read references/supervisor.md. It documents the existing CLI; it is not required
for ordinary autonomous work.
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.

