autoresearch
Skill1 starsChanged 50 days agoMITView on GitHub
Autonomous goal-directed iteration applying Karpathy's autoresearch loop — modify, verify, keep/discard, repeat. Use when the user wants a task iterated autonomously, says /autoresearch, /loop, hill-climb a goal, or asks for iterative self-improvement on code, prompts, or content.
- Commits and pushes
100 other projects use a version of this, 6 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- thistleknot/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- WdBlink/autoresearch-papertheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- OpenLAIR/dr-clawedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- taixuann/development-spacetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- TidalPaladin/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- usecompai/compound-operations-modeltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use aeon-update, auto-workflow 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.
aaronjmarsSkillaeon-update
Pull framework updates from the upstream Aeon repo into this instance - 3-way merges canon's new commits into a PR, never clobbering operator config.
Also in 4 projects that use this
aaronjmarsSkillauto-workflow
Two-mode aeon.yml workflow builder - analyze inspects URLs and emits a tiered, signal-verified skill-enablement plan plus an aeon.yml diff; enable flips slugs to enabled:true and opens a PR.
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +10 more from aaronjmars
Other versions100 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 6
- erigontech/erigon★ 3.6k77% same
- OpenLAIR/dr-claw★ 1.2k38% same
- ruizrica/agent-pi★ 27420% same
- dominicletz/elixir-skills★ 3463% same
- Muminur/autoresearch-skill-Andrej-Karpathy★ 1663% same
- architect-4-citadell/elektra-skills★ 192% same
Wrote their own version · 94
- github/awesome-copilot★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex★ 34ksame name
- AgriciDaniel/claude-obsidian★ 16ksame name
- Orchestra-Research/AI-research-SKILLs★ 13ksame name
- zechenzhangAGI/AI-research-SKILLs★ 13ksame name
- Orchestra-Research/AI-Research-SKILLs★ 12ksame name
- advaitpaliwal/feynman★ 10ksame name
- companion-inc/feynman★ 10ksame name
84 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 repository113 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- ac-ideateSkill
- ac-listSkill
- ac-roadmapSkill
- agentbridge-mcpSkill
- almanacSkill
- almquist-shellSkill
- ansible-fleetSkill
- apfsSkill
- apple-siliconSkill
- arena-actorsSkill
- asustor-nasSkill
- a-teamSkill
- atem-miniSkill
- at-tuiSkill
- babysitSkill
- bonzibuddySkill
- bop-brainstormSkill
- bop-catalogSkill
- bop-onSkill
- bop-teamSkill
- bop-workflowSkill
- bsd-portabilitySkill
- code-refactoringSkill
- codex-personasSkill
- context-graphSkill
- councilSkill
- datadog-backupSkill
- dd-tagsSkill
- delegateSkill
- deming-pdsaSkill
- deterministic-replaySkill
- dispatch-nuSkill
- durable-commitSkill
- elixir-gastown-opsSkill
- ergo-ircSkill
- esp32-tang-bridgeSkill
- fleet-evalSkill
- fleet-ircSkill
- freebsd-build-vmSkill
- freebsd-piSkill
- freebsdSkill
- ganttSkill
- gastown-opsSkill
- gastown-slingSkill
- gh-authSkill
- gitea-releaseSkill
- gitea-runnerSkill
- henshuSkill
- irclaw-cluster-opsSkill
- irclaw-research-teamSkill
- irc-taskSkill
- jail-factorySkill
- jjSkill
- jobcard-systemSkill
- kubernetesSkill
- leptosSkill
- loreSkill
- lower-bound-reviewSkill
- macvlan-netSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 96 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 42
Every finding requires code evidence (file:line + attack scenario) — no theoretical fluff
- Distinctive: line 192
Verify command MUST pass a dry run on the current codebase before accepting
- Very specific: line 205
After the wizard completes, the user gets a ready-to-paste /autoresearch invocation — or can launch it directly.
- Distinctive: line 257
When a loop count is specified:
- Very specific: line 259
After iteration N, Claude prints a final summary with baseline → current best, keeps/discards/crashes
- Distinctive: line 260
If the goal is achieved before N iterations, Claude prints early completion and stops
- Distinctive: line 261
All other rules (atomic changes, mechanical verification, auto-rollback) still apply
- Very specific: line 275
Use a SINGLE AskUserQuestion call with these 4 questions:
- Distinctive: line 294
IMPORTANT: Always batch questions — never ask one at a time.
- Very specific: line 308
Read references/autonomous-loop-protocol.md for full protocol details.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 96 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
Claude Autoresearch — Autonomous Goal-directed Iteration
Inspired by Karpathy's autoresearch. Applies constraint-driven autonomous iteration to ANY work — not just ML research.
Core idea: You are an autonomous agent. Modify → Verify → Keep/Discard → Repeat.
Subcommands
| Subcommand | Purpose |
/autoresearch | Run the autonomous loop (default) |
/autoresearch:plan | Interactive wizard to build Scope, Metric, Direction & Verify from a Goal |
/autoresearch:security | Autonomous security audit: STRIDE threat model + OWASP Top 10 + red-team (4 adversarial personas) |
/autoresearch:ship | Universal shipping workflow: ship code, content, marketing, sales, research, or anything |
/autoresearch:debug | Autonomous bug-hunting loop: scientific method + iterative investigation until codebase is clean |
/autoresearch:fix | Autonomous fix loop: iteratively repair errors (tests, types, lint, build) until zero remain |
/autoresearch:security — Autonomous Security Audit (v1.0.3)
Runs a comprehensive security audit using the autoresearch loop pattern. Generates a full STRIDE threat model, maps attack surfaces, then iteratively tests each vulnerability vector — logging findings with severity, OWASP category, and code evidence.
Load: references/security-workflow.md for full protocol.
What it does:
- Codebase Reconnaissance — scans tech stack, dependencies, configs, API routes
- Asset Identification — catalogs data stores, auth systems, external services, user inputs
- Trust Boundary Mapping — browser↔server, public↔authenticated, user↔admin, CI/CD↔prod
- STRIDE Threat Model — Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Info Disclosure, DoS, Elevation of Privilege
- Attack Surface Map — entry points, data flows, abuse paths
- Autonomous Loop — iteratively tests each vector, validates with code evidence, logs findings
- Final Report — severity-ranked findings with mitigations, coverage matrix, iteration log
Key behaviors:
- Follows red-team adversarial mindset (Security Adversary, Supply Chain, Insider Threat, Infra Attacker)
- Every finding requires code evidence (file:line + attack scenario) — no theoretical fluff
- Tracks OWASP Top 10 + STRIDE coverage, prints coverage summary every 5 iterations
- Composite metric:
(owasp_tested/10)*50 + (stride_tested/6)*30 + min(findings, 20)— higher is better - Creates
security/{YYMMDD}-{HHMM}-{audit-slug}/folder with structured reports:overview.md,threat-model.md,attack-surface-map.md,findings.md,owasp-coverage.md,dependency-audit.md,recommendations.md,security-audit-results.tsv
Flags:
| Flag | Purpose |
--diff | Delta mode — only audit files changed since last audit |
--fix | After audit, auto-fix confirmed Critical/High findings using autoresearch loop |
--fail-on {severity} | Exit non-zero if findings meet threshold (for CI/CD gating) |
Usage:
# Unlimited — keep finding vulnerabilities until interrupted
/autoresearch:security
# Bounded — exactly 10 security sweep iterations
/loop 10 /autoresearch:security
# With focused scope
/autoresearch:security
Scope: src/api/**/*.ts, src/middleware/**/*.ts
Focus: authentication and authorization flows
# Delta mode — only audit changed files since last audit
/autoresearch:security --diff
# Auto-fix confirmed Critical/High findings after audit
/loop 15 /autoresearch:security --fix
# CI/CD gate — fail pipeline if any Critical findings
/loop 10 /autoresearch:security --fail-on critical
# Combined — delta audit + fix + gate
/loop 15 /autoresearch:security --diff --fix --fail-on criticalInspired by:
- Strix — AI-powered security testing with proof-of-concept validation
/plan red-team— adversarial review with hostile reviewer personas- OWASP Top 10 (2021) — industry-standard vulnerability taxonomy
- STRIDE — Microsoft's threat modeling framework
/autoresearch:ship — Universal Shipping Workflow (v1.1.0)
Ship anything — code, content, marketing, sales, research, or design — through a structured 8-phase workflow that applies autoresearch loop principles to the last mile.
Load: references/ship-workflow.md for full protocol.
What it does:
- Identify — auto-detect what you're shipping (code PR, deployment, blog post, email campaign, sales deck, research paper, design assets)
- Inventory — assess current state and readiness gaps
- Checklist — generate domain-specific pre-ship gates (all mechanically verifiable)
- Prepare — autoresearch loop to fix failing checklist items until 100% pass
- Dry-run — simulate the ship action without side effects
- Ship — execute the actual delivery (merge, deploy, publish, send)
- Verify — post-ship health check confirms it landed
- Log — record shipment to
ship-log.tsvfor traceability
Supported shipment types:
| Type | Example Ship Actions |
code-pr | gh pr create with full description |
code-release | Git tag + GitHub release |
deployment | CI/CD trigger, kubectl apply, push to deploy branch |
content | Publish via CMS, commit to content branch |
marketing-email | Send via ESP (SendGrid, Mailchimp) |
marketing-campaign | Activate ads, launch landing page |
sales | Send proposal, share deck |
research | Upload to repository, submit paper |
design | Export assets, share with stakeholders |
Flags:
| Flag | Purpose |
--dry-run | Validate everything but don't actually ship (stop at Phase 5) |
--auto | Auto-approve dry-run gate if no errors |
--force | Skip non-critical checklist items (blockers still enforced) |
--rollback | Undo the last ship action (if reversible) |
--monitor N | Post-ship monitoring for N minutes |
--type <type> | Override auto-detection with explicit shipment type |
--checklist-only | Only generate and evaluate checklist (stop at Phase 3) |
Usage:
# Auto-detect and ship (interactive)
/autoresearch:ship
# Ship code PR with auto-approve
/autoresearch:ship --auto
# Dry-run a deployment before going live
/autoresearch:ship --type deployment --dry-run
# Ship with post-deployment monitoring
/autoresearch:ship --monitor 10
# Prepare iteratively then ship
/loop 5 /autoresearch:ship
# Just check if something is ready to ship
/autoresearch:ship --checklist-only
# Ship a blog post
/autoresearch:ship
Target: content/blog/my-new-post.md
Type: content
# Ship a sales deck
/autoresearch:ship --type sales
Target: decks/q1-proposal.pdf
# Rollback a bad deployment
/autoresearch:ship --rollbackComposite metric (for bounded loops):
ship_score = (checklist_passing / checklist_total) * 80
+ (dry_run_passed ? 15 : 0)
+ (no_blockers ? 5 : 0)Score of 100 = fully ready. Below 80 = not shippable.
Output directory: Creates ship/{YYMMDD}-{HHMM}-{ship-slug}/ with checklist.md, ship-log.tsv, summary.md.
/autoresearch:plan — Goal → Configuration Wizard
Converts a plain-language goal into a validated, ready-to-execute autoresearch configuration.
Load: references/plan-workflow.md for full protocol.
Quick summary:
- Capture Goal — ask what the user wants to improve (or accept inline text)
- Analyze Context — scan codebase for tooling, test runners, build scripts
- Define Scope — suggest file globs, validate they resolve to real files
- Define Metric — suggest mechanical metrics, validate they output a number
- Define Direction — higher or lower is better
- Define Verify — construct the shell command, dry-run it, confirm it works
- Confirm & Launch — present the complete config, offer to launch immediately
Critical gates:
- Metric MUST be mechanical (outputs a parseable number, not subjective)
- Verify command MUST pass a dry run on the current codebase before accepting
- Scope MUST resolve to ≥1 file
Usage:
/autoresearch:plan
Goal: Make the API respond faster
/autoresearch:plan Increase test coverage to 95%
/autoresearch:plan Reduce bundle size below 200KBAfter the wizard completes, the user gets a ready-to-paste /autoresearch invocation — or can launch it directly.
When to Activate
- User invokes
/autoresearchor/ug:autoresearch→ run the loop - User invokes
/autoresearch:plan→ run the planning wizard - User invokes
/autoresearch:security→ run the security audit - User says "help me set up autoresearch", "plan an autoresearch run" → run the planning wizard
- User says "security audit", "threat model", "OWASP", "STRIDE", "find vulnerabilities", "red-team" → run the security audit
- User invokes
/autoresearch:ship→ run the ship workflow - User says "ship it", "deploy this", "publish this", "launch this", "get this out the door" → run the ship workflow
- User invokes
/autoresearch:debug→ run the debug loop - User says "find all bugs", "hunt bugs", "debug this", "why is this failing", "investigate" → run the debug loop
- User invokes
/autoresearch:fix→ run the fix loop - User says "fix all errors", "make tests pass", "fix the build", "clean up errors" → run the fix loop
- User says "work autonomously", "iterate until done", "keep improving", "run overnight" → run the loop
- Any task requiring repeated iteration cycles with measurable outcomes → run the loop
Optional: Controlled Loop Count
By default, autoresearch loops forever until manually interrupted. However, users can optionally specify a loop count to limit iterations using Claude Code's built-in /loop command.
Requires: Claude Code v1.0.32+ (the
/loopcommand was introduced in this version)
Usage
Unlimited (default):
/autoresearch
Goal: Increase test coverage to 90%Bounded (N iterations):
/loop 25 /autoresearch
Goal: Increase test coverage to 90%This chains /autoresearch with /loop 25, running exactly 25 iteration cycles. After 25 iterations, Claude stops and prints a final summary.
When to Use Bounded Loops
| Scenario | Recommendation |
| Run overnight, review in morning | Unlimited (default) |
| Quick 30-min improvement session | /loop 10 /autoresearch |
| Targeted fix with known scope | /loop 5 /autoresearch |
| Exploratory — see if approach works | /loop 15 /autoresearch |
| CI/CD pipeline integration | /loop N /autoresearch (set N based on time budget) |
Behavior with Loop Count
When a loop count is specified:
- Claude runs exactly N iterations through the autoresearch loop
- After iteration N, Claude prints a final summary with baseline → current best, keeps/discards/crashes
- If the goal is achieved before N iterations, Claude prints early completion and stops
- All other rules (atomic changes, mechanical verification, auto-rollback) still apply
Setup Phase (Do Once)
If the user provides Goal, Scope, Metric, and Verify inline → extract them and proceed to step 5.
If any critical field is missing → use AskUserQuestion to collect them interactively:
Interactive Setup (when invoked without full config)
Scan the codebase first for smart defaults, then ask ALL questions in batched AskUserQuestion calls (max 4 per call). This gives users full clarity upfront.
Batch 1 — Core config (4 questions in one call):
Use a SINGLE AskUserQuestion call with these 4 questions:
| # | Header | Question | Options (smart defaults from codebase scan) |
| 1 | Goal | "What do you want to improve?" | "Test coverage (higher)", "Bundle size (lower)", "Performance (faster)", "Code quality (fewer errors)" |
| 2 | Scope | "Which files can autoresearch modify?" | Suggested globs from project structure (e.g. "src//*.ts", "content//*.md") |
| 3 | Metric | "What number tells you if it got better? (must be a command output, not subjective)" | Detected options: "coverage % (higher)", "bundle size KB (lower)", "error count (lower)", "test pass count (higher)" |
| 4 | Direction | "Higher or lower is better?" | "Higher is better", "Lower is better" |
Batch 2 — Verify + Guard + Launch (3 questions in one call):
| # | Header | Question | Options |
| 5 | Verify | "What command produces the metric? (I'll dry-run it to confirm)" | Suggested commands from detected tooling |
| 6 | Guard | "Any command that must ALWAYS pass? (prevents regressions)" | "npm test", "tsc --noEmit", "npm run build", "Skip — no guard" |
| 7 | Launch | "Ready to go?" | "Launch (unlimited)", "Launch with /loop N", "Edit config", "Cancel" |
After Batch 2: Dry-run the verify command. If it fails, ask user to fix or choose a different command. If it passes, proceed with launch choice.
IMPORTANT: Always batch questions — never ask one at a time. Users should see all config choices together for full context.
Setup Steps (after config is complete)
- Read all in-scope files for full context before any modification
- Define the goal — extracted from user input or inline config
- Define scope constraints — validated file globs
- Define guard (optional) — regression prevention command
- Create a results log — Track every iteration (see
references/results-logging.md) - Establish baseline — Run verification on current state AND guard (if set). Record as iteration #0
- Confirm and go — Show user the setup, get confirmation, then BEGIN THE LOOP
The Loop
Read references/autonomous-loop-protocol.md for full protocol details.
LOOP (FOREVER or N times):
1. Review: Read current state + git history + results log
2. Ideate: Pick next change based on goal, past results, what hasn't been tried
3. Modify: Make ONE focused change to in-scope files
4. Commit: Git commit the change (before verification)
5. Verify: Run the mechanical metric (tests, build, benchmark, etc.)
6. Guard: If guard is set, run the guard command
7. Decide:
- IMPROVED + guard passed (or no guard) → Keep commit, log "keep", advance
- IMPROVED + guard FAILED → Revert, then try to rework the optimization
(max 2 attempts) so it improves the metric WITHOUT breaking the guard.
Never modify guard/test files — adapt the implementation instead.
If still failing → log "discard (guard failed)" and move on
- SAME/WORSE → Git revert, log "discard"
- CRASHED → Try to fix (max 3 attempts), else log "crash" and move on
8. Log: Record result in results log
9. Repeat: Go to step 1.
- If unbounded: NEVER STOP. NEVER ASK "should I continue?"
- If bounded (N): Stop after N iterations, print final summaryCritical Rules
- Loop until done — Unbounded: loop until interrupted. Bounded: loop N times then summarize.
- Read before write — Always understand full context before modifying
- One change per iteration — Atomic changes. If it breaks, you know exactly why
- Mechanical verification only — No subjective "looks good". Use metrics
- Automatic rollback — Failed changes revert instantly. No debates
- Simplicity wins — Equal results + less code = KEEP. Tiny improvement + ugly complexity = DISCARD
- Git is memory — Every kept change committed. Agent reads history to learn patterns
- When stuck, think harder — Re-read files, re-read goal, combine near-misses, try radical changes. Don't ask for help unless truly blocked by missing access/permissions
Principles Reference
See references/core-principles.md for the 7 generalizable principles from autoresearch.
Adapting to Different Domains
| Domain | Metric | Scope | Verify Command | Guard |
| Backend code | Tests pass + coverage % | src/**/*.ts | npm test | — |
| Frontend UI | Lighthouse score | src/components/** | npx lighthouse | npm test |
| ML training | val_bpb / loss | train.py | uv run train.py | — |
| Blog/content | Word count + readability | content/*.md | Custom script | — |
| Performance | Benchmark time (ms) | Target files | npm run bench | npm test |
| Refactoring | Tests pass + LOC reduced | Target module | npm test && wc -l | npm run typecheck |
| Security | OWASP + STRIDE coverage + findings | API/auth/middleware | /autoresearch:security | — |
| Shipping | Checklist pass rate (%) | Any artifact | /autoresearch:ship | Domain-specific |
| Debugging | Bugs found + coverage | Target files | /autoresearch:debug | — |
| Fixing | Error count (lower) | Target files | /autoresearch:fix | npm test |
Adapt the loop to your domain. The PRINCIPLES are universal; the METRICS are domain-specific.
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.

