autonomous-current
Skill3 starsChanged 49 days agoMITView on GitHub
Autonomously develop a repository feature directly in the current Git checkout. Use when the user has already created and switched to a clean non-main feature branch and wants the agent's edits to land in that branch without a disposable worktree. Codex independently enhances the idea, proposes a plan, and reviews the work while Claude reconciles, implements, verifies, and triages findings.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- SemanticMatter/autonomous-developmentword for word, first seen Sep 24, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- SemanticMatter/autonomous-development★ 3100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- adversarial-reviewSkill
- autonomous-featureSkill
- autonomous-mainSkill
- autonomous-statusSkill
- codex-reviewSkill
- enhance-ideaSkill
- fix-findingsSkill
- implementation-planSkill
- implement-planSkill
- review-existing-prSkill
- verify-featureSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 50
Do not create commits. The user will review and commit with their normal git diff/commit flow.
- Distinctive: line 53
Never push, merge, publish, deploy, rotate credentials, or modify remote infrastructure.
- Very specific: line 54
Never use danger-full-access, --yolo, bypassPermissions, or equivalent unrestricted modes.
- Distinctive: line 55
Never apply an irreversible database migration or delete user data.
- Distinctive: line 56
Do not weaken authorization, validation, tests, or static checks to make the workflow pass.
- Distinctive: line 58
Use no more than the configured review-round budget.
- Distinctive: line 59
Treat every Codex finding as a proposal requiring evidence-based triage.
- Very specific: line 89
Read the referenced file under ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/autonomous-feature/references/ for that phase and follow it until the …
- Very specific: line 92
Do not declare success until evaluate succeeds:
≈ “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 feature development — current checkout
Implement this feature idea directly in the user's current Git checkout:
$ARGUMENTS
This skill is the current-checkout counterpart to autonomous-feature. The user has already
created a clean non-main/non-master feature branch and wants the agent's edits to land
directly in that branch — no disposable worktree, no .claude/worktrees/* clone, no extra
worktree-* branch. Use ultrathink for architecture, compatibility, and review triage.
Non-negotiable boundaries
- This skill must NOT call
EnterWorktree/ExitWorktree. All edits land in the current checkout. Do not create or enter.claude/worktrees/*. - Refuse to run on
mainormaster. If the current branch is one of those, stop and ask the user to create a feature branch first (or use/autonomous-development:autonomous-mainwhen they have explicitly authorized direct edits on main). - Refuse to run on a dirty working tree.
git status --porcelainmust be empty before initializing. If it is not, stop and report which entries are dirty. - Do not create commits. The user will review and commit with their normal
git diff/commit flow. - Preserve unrelated user changes.
- Never push, merge, publish, deploy, rotate credentials, or modify remote infrastructure.
- Never use
danger-full-access,--yolo,bypassPermissions, or equivalent unrestricted modes. - Never apply an irreversible database migration or delete user data.
- Do not weaken authorization, validation, tests, or static checks to make the workflow pass.
- Codex planning and review executions must remain read-only.
- Use no more than the configured review-round budget.
- Treat every Codex finding as a proposal requiring evidence-based triage.
Driver loop
- Confirm this is a Git repository. Inspect
CLAUDE.md, repository instructions, architecture, status, and tests. Verify the current branch is NOTmain/masterand that the working tree is clean before initializing — the controller will fail closed on both, but checking up front produces a clearer message for the user. Initialize in current-checkout mode (no worktree):
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/controller.py" doctor python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/controller.py" init \ --feature "$ARGUMENTS" \ --mode standard \ --worktree-mode currentinitprints therun-state.jsonpath and run ID. With multiple concurrent runs, pass--run-id <run-id>to all subsequent commands. Ifdoctorreports a missing prerequisite, mark the run blocked and report it rather than bypassing it.Repeatedly ask the controller for the next phase, then execute it:
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/controller.py" next-action --jsonThe response gives
phase,required_action,completion_condition, andreferences. Read the referenced file under${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/autonomous-feature/references/for that phase and follow it until the completion condition holds.Do not declare success until
evaluatesucceeds:python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/controller.py" evaluate python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/controller.py" status python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/controller.py" usage-report
Final report
- the implemented behavior;
- principal files changed (visible to the user via plain
git diff); - verification commands and results;
- Codex review rounds and disposition of findings;
- adversarial review result when one was required;
- per-phase usage table from
usage-report; - remaining risks or explicit blocked reason;
- a suggested conventional commit message (the user commits manually — this skill must not commit).
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.

