autonomous-main
Skill3 starsChanged 49 days agoMITView on GitHub
Autonomously develop a repository feature directly in the current main/master checkout. Use only when the user has explicitly authorized direct edits on main/master. Same workflow as autonomous-current but passes --allow-main to bypass the main/master refusal. Still requires a clean working tree and never commits.
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-currentSkill
- autonomous-featureSkill
- 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 49
Do not create commits. The user will review and commit with their normal git diff/commit flow.
- Distinctive: line 52
Never push, merge, publish, deploy, rotate credentials, or modify remote infrastructure.
- Very specific: line 53
Never use danger-full-access, --yolo, bypassPermissions, or equivalent unrestricted modes.
- Distinctive: line 54
Never apply an irreversible database migration or delete user data.
- Distinctive: line 55
Do not weaken authorization, validation, tests, or static checks to make the workflow pass.
- Distinctive: line 57
Use no more than the configured review-round budget.
- Distinctive: line 58
Treat every Codex finding as a proposal requiring evidence-based triage.
- Very specific: line 87
Read the referenced file under ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/autonomous-feature/references/ for that phase and follow it until the …
- Very specific: line 90
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 on main
Implement this feature idea directly in the user's current checkout, including when the
current branch is main or master:
$ARGUMENTS
This is the explicit-opt-in variant of autonomous-current. By invoking this skill the user has
acknowledged that the agent's edits will land directly in main/master. Prefer
autonomous-feature (isolated worktree) or autonomous-current (clean feature branch) when
either is appropriate; this skill exists for cases where the user really does want changes in
the current main/master checkout.
Non-negotiable boundaries
- This skill must NOT call
EnterWorktree/ExitWorktree. All edits land in the current checkout. Do not create or enter.claude/worktrees/*. - Require a clean working tree.
git status --porcelainmust be empty before initializing. If it is not, stop and report which entries are dirty. - Do not create commits. The user will review and commit with their normal
git diff/commit flow. - Preserve unrelated user changes.
- Never push, merge, publish, deploy, rotate credentials, or modify remote infrastructure.
- Never use
danger-full-access,--yolo,bypassPermissions, or equivalent unrestricted modes. - Never apply an irreversible database migration or delete user data.
- Do not weaken authorization, validation, tests, or static checks to make the workflow pass.
- Codex planning and review executions must remain read-only.
- Use no more than the configured review-round budget.
- Treat every Codex finding as a proposal requiring evidence-based triage.
Driver loop
- Confirm this is a Git repository. Inspect
CLAUDE.md, repository instructions, architecture, status, and tests. Verify the working tree is clean before initializing. Initialize in current-checkout mode on main/master:
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/controller.py" doctor python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/controller.py" init \ --feature "$ARGUMENTS" \ --mode standard \ --worktree-mode current \ --allow-maininitprints 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.

