Agent skill

Autopilot

by yangyuan-zhen in yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather

[OMX] Strict autonomous loop: $deep-interview - $ralplan - $ultragoal (+ $team if needed) - $code-review - $ultraqa

AGPL-3.0Auto-check passedAgent Workflows

Install Autopilot

skills CLI
$ npx skills add yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather --skill autopilot -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather autopilot --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/.codex/skills/autopilot .claude/skills/autopilot && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
autopilot
GitHub stars
316
Token cost
~5.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,383 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
26
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
AGPL-3.0

At a glance

[OMX] Strict autonomous loop: $deep-interview - $ralplan - $ultragoal (+ $team if needed) - $code-review - $ultraqa

  • Works in 5 steps: Phase deep-interview — Socratic… → Phase ralplan — consensus planning gate → Phase ultragoal — durable implementation… → …
  • Tasks that involve Autonomous loops
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
  • Tasks that involve Code review

What it does

Autopilot is an agent skill from yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather. [OMX] Strict autonomous loop: $deep-interview - $ralplan - $ultragoal (+ $team if needed) - $code-review - $ultraqa

Its SKILL.md is about 5.8k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Agent Workflows, covering Autonomous loops and Code review. The repository describes itself as: polymarket Intelligent Weather Quant Analysis Bot. The licence is AGPL-3.0.

When your agent uses it

  • Tasks that involve Autonomous loops
  • Tasks that involve Code review

Example prompts

  • “/autopilot”

Workflow steps

5 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Phase deep-interview — Socratic requirements clarification gate
  2. Phase ralplan — consensus planning gate
  3. Phase ultragoal — durable implementation + verification loop
  4. Phase code-review — merge-readiness gate
  5. Phase ultraqa — adversarial QA gate

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 43e658b. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md (its code samples are json and bash).

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Autopilot loads about 5.8k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 32 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,383 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~32
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~5.8k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather at commit 43e658b, republished under its AGPL-3.0 licence (© yangyuan-zhen). 2,383 words, ~5,806 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/autopilot/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
autopilot
description
[OMX] Strict autonomous loop: $deep-interview -> $ralplan -> $ultragoal (+ $team if needed) -> $code-review -> $ultraqa
<Purpose>
Autopilot is the strict autonomous delivery loop for non-trivial work. Its recommended/default contract is exactly:
text
$deep-interview -> $ralplan -> $ultragoal (+ $team if needed) -> $code-review -> $ultraqa

If $code-review or $ultraqa is not clean, Autopilot returns to $ralplan with the findings as the next planning input, then continues again through $ultragoal, $code-review, and $ultraqa until the gates are clean or a hard blocker is reported. Ralph is a legacy/explicit alternate execution loop only; do not advertise Ralph as the default Autopilot path. </Purpose>

<Use_When>

  • User wants hands-off execution from a concrete idea, issue, PRD, or requirements artifact to reviewed and QA-checked code
  • User says $autopilot, "autopilot", "auto pilot", "autonomous", "build me", "create me", "make me", "full auto", "handle it all", or "I want a/an..."
  • Task needs clarification, planning, durable execution, verification, code review, and QA with automatic follow-up when gates are not clean </Use_When>

<Do_Not_Use_When>

  • User wants to explore options or brainstorm -- use $plan / $ralplan
  • User says "just explain", "draft only", or "what would you suggest" -- respond conversationally
  • User wants a single focused code change -- use $ultragoal, $ralph only when explicitly requested, or direct executor work
  • User wants only review/critique of existing code -- use $code-review </Do_Not_Use_When>

<Strict_Loop_Contract> Autopilot must not run a separate broad expansion/planning/execution/QA/validation lifecycle as its primary behavior. It delegates those concerns to the canonical workflow phases below:

  1. Phase deep-interview — Socratic requirements clarification gate

    • Run or resume $deep-interview to clarify intent, scope, non-goals, constraints, and decision boundaries.
    • Deep-interview is a structured question chain, not a one-question gate; max_rounds is a cap, not a target.
    • After a user answers an omx question, re-score ambiguity against the active profile threshold. Ask another question only when a readiness gate is still unresolved and the answer would materially change execution; otherwise crystallize the spec and hand off.
    • Required handoff artifact: a clarified spec or concise requirements summary suitable for $ralplan, including an explicit interview-complete rationale when leaving deep-interview.
  2. Phase ralplan — consensus planning gate

    • Ground the task with pre-context intake and the deep-interview artifact.
    • Current ownership rule: Autopilot records planning_routing in state before heavy planning. When the Autopilot/main model resolves to a cheap/mini lane (for example o4-mini, *-mini, *spark*, or an explicitly cheap/economy/lite model name), the initial planning/decomposition owner is dedicated [planner]; otherwise [main] may keep ownership for backward compatibility. A configured agentModels.planner is an explicit opt-in that forces dedicated [planner] ownership even when [main] is not cheap/mini.
    • Run or resume $ralplan to produce/update PRD and test-spec artifacts. If planning_routing.owner is planner, use the dedicated [planner] role for the initial Planner draft/decomposition before the Architect→Critic consensus gates.
    • PRD/test-spec files alone are not completion evidence. Local Architect→Critic approvals are lifecycle evidence, not handoff authority. Ralplan may hand off only after an official host-issued receipt is verified through a documented non-user-mintable host surface; until then retain the reviews with ralplan_consensus_gate.complete:false and blocked_reason:"documented_host_consensus_receipt_unavailable".
    • On every revised planning pass, require subsequent Architect approval first and subsequent Critic approval second. These ordered reviews remain lifecycle evidence only and never replace the official host receipt.
    • When returning from a non-clean review or QA pass, include return_to_ralplan_reason and the findings as first-class planning input.
    • If either review is missing, blocked, out of order, or non-approving, remain in ralplan or report an explicit blocker/max-iteration outcome; do not progress to $ultragoal, $team, $ralph, or implementation.
    • Required handoff artifact: planning artifacts, lifecycle-only Architect→Critic reviews, and a verified official host receipt authorizing ralplan_consensus_gate.complete:true. Without that receipt, remain in ralplan and report the host blocker.
  3. Phase ultragoal — durable implementation + verification loop

    • Run $ultragoal only from ralplan artifacts whose consensus gate is authorized by a verified official host receipt.
    • Ultragoal owns durable Codex goal handoffs, .omx/ultragoal ledger checkpoints, implementation, tests, build/lint/typecheck evidence, cleanup, and final review gate discipline.
    • Use $team only inside an active Ultragoal story when the story clearly benefits from coordinated parallel execution (for example independent file/module lanes, broad test matrix work, or multi-domain implementation). Team remains explicit and leader-owned; Ultragoal keeps the goal/ledger state.
    • Required handoff artifact: implementation evidence, changed-file summary, verification evidence, and Ultragoal ledger/checkpoint references suitable for $code-review.
  4. Phase code-review — merge-readiness gate

    • Run $code-review on the diff/artifacts produced by $ultragoal.
    • A clean review means final recommendation APPROVE with architectural status CLEAR.
    • COMMENT, REQUEST CHANGES, any architectural WATCH/BLOCK, or any unresolved finding is not clean.
    • If not clean because the implementation must be repaired, increment the review cycle, persist review_verdict, set current_phase:"rework", and carry the findings as the sanctioned execution-fix input. Return to Phase ralplan only when the review shows the plan/requirements are wrong or incomplete.
  5. Phase ultraqa — adversarial QA gate

    • Run $ultraqa after a clean code review when user-facing behavior, workflows, CLI/runtime behavior, integration surfaces, or regression risk warrant adversarial QA.
    • For docs-only or trivially non-runtime changes, record ultraqa as skipped with an explicit condition and evidence.
    • If UltraQA finds issues, persist the QA verdict/evidence, set return_to_ralplan_reason, and transition back to Phase ralplan.

The only normal terminal state is complete after clean code review and a passed or explicitly skipped UltraQA gate. Cancellation, blocked credentials, unrecoverable repeated failures, or explicit user stop may terminate earlier with preserved state. </Strict_Loop_Contract>

<Pre-context Intake> Before Phase deep-interview or ralplan starts or resumes:

  1. Derive a task slug from the request.
  2. Reuse the latest relevant .omx/context/{slug}-*.md snapshot when available.
  3. If none exists, create .omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md (UTC YYYYMMDDTHHMMSSZ) with:
    • activation prompt / task seed
    • original task status (activation-prompt, legacy-unverified, or unavailable)
    • desired outcome
    • known facts/evidence
    • constraints
    • unknowns/open questions
    • likely codebase touchpoints
    • a scope note that the seed is the Autopilot activation prompt, not guaranteed prior conversation context
  4. If brownfield facts are missing, run explore first before or during $deep-interview ($deep-interview --quick <task> remains acceptable for bounded low-ambiguity intake); do not skip the clarification gate merely because the task sounds actionable.
  5. Carry the snapshot path in Autopilot state and all handoff artifacts. </Pre-context Intake>

<Execution_Policy>

  • Always execute the recommended phases in order: deep-interview, then ralplan, then ultragoal, then code-review, then ultraqa.
  • $team is conditional and explicit: use it only within an Ultragoal story when parallel execution materially improves throughput, quality, or safety.
  • Never skip directly from vague/freeform expansion to implementation; unclear input must be clarified and planned through $deep-interview and $ralplan.
  • A non-clean $code-review that requires implementation repair enters Phase rework; a non-clean review that changes the plan/requirements, or failed $ultraqa, returns to $ralplan.
  • Each phase must write/update Autopilot state before handing off.
  • Use existing hooks, .omx/state, $deep-interview, $ralplan, $ultragoal, optional $team, $code-review, $ultraqa, and pipeline primitives; do not invent a separate execution framework.
  • Preserve legacy compatibility: if a user explicitly requests the old Ralph execution lane, use $ralph as an intentional alternate execution phase, but do not present it as Autopilot's default recommended loop.
  • Continue automatically through safe reversible phase transitions. Ask only for destructive, credential-gated, or materially preference-dependent branches.
  • Apply the shared workflow guidance pattern: outcome-first framing, concise visible updates for multi-step execution, local overrides for the active workflow branch, validation proportional to risk, explicit stop rules, and automatic continuation for safe reversible steps. Ask only for material, destructive, credentialed, external-production, or preference-dependent branches. </Execution_Policy>

<State_Management> Use the CLI-first state surface (omx state ... --json) for Autopilot lifecycle state. State must be session-aware when a session id exists. If the explicit MCP compatibility surface is already available, equivalent omx_state tool calls remain acceptable but are not required.

Inside active Autopilot, named child phases such as $ralplan are supervised phases, not peer workflow activations: keep mode:"autopilot" active and update current_phase:"ralplan" rather than starting standalone mode:"ralplan" over Autopilot.

Required fields:

json
{
  "mode": "autopilot",
  "active": true,
  "current_phase": "deep-interview",
  "iteration": 1,
  "review_cycle": 0,
  "max_iterations": 10,
  "phase_cycle": ["deep-interview", "ralplan", "ultragoal", "code-review", "ultraqa"],
  "handoff_artifacts": {
    "context_snapshot_path": ".omx/context/<slug>-<timestamp>.md",
    "deep_interview": null,
    "ralplan": null,
    "ralplan_consensus_gate": {
      "required": true,
      "sequence": ["architect-review", "critic-review"],
      "planning_artifacts_are_not_consensus": true,
      "required_review_roles": ["architect", "critic"],
      "ralplan_architect_review": null,
      "ralplan_critic_review": null,
      "complete": false
    },
    "ultragoal": null,
    "code_review": null,
    "ultraqa": null
  },
  "review_verdict": null,
  "qa_verdict": null,
  "return_to_ralplan_reason": null
}
  • On start: omx state write --input '{"mode":"autopilot","active":true,"current_phase":"deep-interview","iteration":1,"review_cycle":0,"state":{"phase_cycle":["deep-interview","ralplan","ultragoal","code-review","ultraqa"],"handoff_artifacts":{"context_snapshot_path":"<snapshot-path>","deep_interview":null,"ralplan":null,"ralplan_consensus_gate":{"required":true,"sequence":["architect-review","critic-review"],"planning_artifacts_are_not_consensus":true,"required_review_roles":["architect","critic"],"ralplan_architect_review":null,"ralplan_critic_review":null,"complete":false},"ultragoal":null,"code_review":null,"ultraqa":null},"review_verdict":null,"qa_verdict":null,"return_to_ralplan_reason":null}}' --json
  • On deep-interview -> ralplan: only after a separate gate proves the interview chain is explicitly complete or the user explicitly authorized a skip. For completion, persist deep_interview_gate:{"status":"complete","rationale":"<why requirements are complete>","handoff_summary":"<summary>"} (or equivalent non-empty rationale/summary) plus the clarified spec/requirements under handoff_artifacts.deep_interview; if a final omx question was involved, keep its same-session answered record linked by question_id/satisfied_at. For skip, persist deep_interview_gate:{"status":"skipped","skip_authorized_by_user":true,"skip_reason":"<user-authorized reason>","skipped_at":"<timestamp>","source":"user","session_id":"<session>"}. Do not leave deep-interview merely because the first omx question was answered or cleared.
    • The stable <!-- OMX:AUTOPILOT:DEEP-INTERVIEW-RALPLAN-HANDOFF:v1 --> marker immediately precedes the executable completion handoff fence; automation may locate exactly that fence.
<!-- OMX:AUTOPILOT:DEEP-INTERVIEW-RALPLAN-HANDOFF:v1 -->
bash
omx state write --input '{"mode":"autopilot","active":true,"current_phase":"ralplan","session_id":"'"${OMX_SESSION_ID:?authoritative OMX session required}"'","workingDirectory":"'"${PWD:?working directory required}"'","state":{"deep_interview_gate":{"status":"complete","rationale":"requirements are clarified and ready for planning","handoff_summary":"durable deep-interview handoff recorded for ralplan"},"handoff_artifacts":{"deep_interview":".omx/specs/deep-interview-handoff.md"}}}' --json
  • The artifact path above must already contain the durable clarified requirements/specification before this command runs. Omit session aliases unless needed; if emitted, owner_omx_session_id, codex_session_id, and owner_codex_session_id must each equal session_id.
  • Optional execution contract foundation: when a downstream handoff explicitly sets execution_contract_required:true, persist a complete structured execution_contract under handoff_artifacts.deep_interview before leaving deep-interview. The canonical schema is version:1, execution_stride:"task"|"deliverable"|"milestone", source:"deep-interview", selected_by:"user"|"default", allow_task_shrink:<boolean>, non-empty completion_unit, non-empty stop_condition, acceptance_coverage_scope:"task"|"deliverable"|"milestone", and shrink_policy:"allowed"|"ask_before_shrink"|"deny_unless_blocked".
  • Stride semantics are binding only when execution_contract_required:true: task means allow_task_shrink:true, acceptance_coverage_scope:"task", shrink_policy:"allowed"; deliverable means allow_task_shrink:false, acceptance_coverage_scope:"deliverable", shrink_policy:"ask_before_shrink"; milestone means allow_task_shrink:false, acceptance_coverage_scope:"milestone", shrink_policy:"deny_unless_blocked".
  • Preserve legacy behavior when execution_contract_required is absent or false. Do not infer stride from prose, broadness, phase names, snapshots, or task size; this foundation only validates an explicit structured contract and deliberately uses milestone rather than phase. New artifacts must write canonical snake_case keys under handoff_artifacts.deep_interview; the runtime may read legacy camelCase field/marker aliases and direct/nested execution_contract locations only as compatibility input.
  • On ralplan -> ultragoal: only after ralplan_consensus_gate.complete:true from an official host-issued receipt verified through a documented non-user-mintable host surface. Native-subagent Architect/Critic lanes, tracker records, codex_exec, and artifact approvals are lifecycle or trace evidence only. Until that verifier exists, keep current_phase:"ralplan" and persist blocked_reason:"documented_host_consensus_receipt_unavailable".
  • On missing ralplan consensus evidence: keep current_phase:"ralplan", persist ralplan_consensus_gate.complete:false with blocked_reason, and report an explicit blocker or max-iteration outcome instead of handing off to execution.
  • On ultragoal -> code-review: set current_phase:"code-review", persist implementation/test/ledger evidence under handoff_artifacts.ultragoal.
  • On code-review -> ultraqa: set current_phase:"ultraqa" only after a real $code-review stage/subagent has produced durable evidence; persist the clean review under handoff_artifacts.code_review with its source thread/tool/stage reference. Do not author review_verdict:{clean:true} from the leader's own summary.
  • On non-clean code-review requiring implementation repair: increment review_cycle, set current_phase:"rework", persist review_verdict, persist the phase handoff under handoff_artifacts.code_review, and keep the fix scoped to the review findings before returning to code-review.
  • On clean review + passed/skipped QA: set active:false, current_phase:"complete", persist review_verdict:{recommendation:"APPROVE", architectural_status:"CLEAR", clean:true}, qa_verdict:{clean:true, skipped:<boolean>, reason:<string|null>}, and completed_at only when both gates have durable source evidence. Required evidence is either (a) actual $code-review/$ultraqa stage or native-subagent/thread/tool records, or (b) for QA only, an explicit persisted skip reason for a documented docs-only/trivially non-runtime condition. If that evidence is missing, keep the active phase at code-review or ultraqa and record a blocker instead of self-attesting a clean gate.
  • On non-clean review requiring plan changes or failed QA: increment iteration and review_cycle, set current_phase:"ralplan", persist review_verdict or qa_verdict, persist the phase handoff, and set return_to_ralplan_reason to a concise findings-driven reason.
  • Legacy Ralph state: if a user explicitly selected the legacy Ralph execution lane, phase names and handoff keys may include ralph; preserve and resume them rather than rewriting history to Ultragoal.
  • On cancellation: run $cancel; preserve progress for resume rather than deleting handoff artifacts. </State_Management>
Show full SKILL.md (613 more words)Show less

<Continuation_And_Resume> When the user says continue, resume, or keep going while Autopilot is active, read autopilot-state.json and continue from current_phase:

  • deep-interview: clarify requirements and record the handoff artifact.
  • ralplan: run/update consensus planning from current handoffs and any return_to_ralplan_reason.
  • ultragoal: execute the approved plan durably and record verification/ledger evidence.
  • rework: perform only the implementation fixes required by the current code-review findings, record fresh implementation/verification evidence, and return to code-review.
  • team: continue explicit team work only when it is nested under the active Ultragoal story and report evidence back to the leader.
  • code-review: review the current diff and decide clean vs return-to-ralplan.
  • ultraqa: run or explicitly skip adversarial QA based on the documented condition, then finish if clean or transition to ralplan with findings if not clean.
  • ralph: resume only for explicit legacy Ralph-path Autopilot state.
  • complete: report completion evidence; do not restart.

Do not restart discovery or discard handoff artifacts on continuation. </Continuation_And_Resume>

<Pipeline_Orchestrator> Autopilot may be represented by the configurable pipeline orchestrator (src/pipeline/) when useful. The default Autopilot pipeline contract is:

text
deep-interview -> ralplan -> ultragoal -> code-review -> ultraqa

Pipeline state should use current_phase values that match the same phase names (deep-interview, ralplan, ultragoal, rework, code-review, ultraqa, complete, failed) and should carry iteration, review_cycle, handoff_artifacts, review_verdict, qa_verdict, and return_to_ralplan_reason alongside stage results. $team is not a default pipeline stage; it is an explicit conditional execution engine inside an Ultragoal story. </Pipeline_Orchestrator>

<Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

  • Stop and report a blocker when required credentials/authority are missing.
  • Stop and report when the same review or QA failure recurs across 3 review cycles with no meaningful new plan.
  • Stop when the user says "stop", "cancel", or "abort" and run $cancel.
  • Otherwise, continue the loop until $code-review is clean and $ultraqa has passed or been explicitly skipped with evidence. </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

<Final_Checklist>

  • Phase deep-interview produced/updated clarified requirements or a concise spec
  • Phase ralplan produced/updated planning artifacts and preserved subsequent Architect→Critic approvals as lifecycle-only evidence; it advanced only with a verified official host receipt, or remained in ralplan with complete:false and blocked_reason:"documented_host_consensus_receipt_unavailable".
  • Phase ultragoal implemented and verified the plan with fresh evidence and durable ledger/checkpoint references
  • Phase rework was used for implementation-only review fixes when applicable, with findings scoped to a fresh code-review cycle
  • $team was used only if the active Ultragoal story needed coordinated parallel work, or explicitly recorded as not needed
  • Phase code-review returned a clean verdict (APPROVE + CLEAR)
  • Phase ultraqa passed, or was explicitly skipped because the change was docs-only/trivially non-runtime with evidence
  • Clean review_verdict cites durable source evidence from a real $code-review stage/subagent/thread/tool record; qa_verdict cites durable $ultraqa evidence or an explicit persisted low-risk skip reason; leader-authored summaries alone are not gate evidence
  • review_verdict.clean is true, qa_verdict.clean is true, and return_to_ralplan_reason is null
  • Tests/build/lint/typecheck evidence from Ultragoal is available in handoff artifacts
  • Autopilot state is marked complete or cancellation state is preserved coherently
  • User receives a concise summary with clarification, plan, implementation, verification, review, and QA evidence </Final_Checklist>
<Examples>
<Good>
User: `$autopilot implement GitHub issue #42`
Flow: create/load context snapshot -> `$deep-interview` requirements check -> `$ralplan` issue plan -> `$ultragoal` durable implementation + tests (launch `$team` only if a story needs parallel lanes) -> `$code-review` -> `$ultraqa`; if review or QA requests changes, return to `$ralplan` with findings.
</Good>
<Good>
User: `continue`
Context: Autopilot state says `current_phase:"code-review"`.
Flow: run `$code-review` on current diff, persist verdict, transition to `ultraqa` if clean or to `ralplan` with findings if not clean.
</Good>
<Good>
User: `$autopilot --legacy-ralph finish the migration`
Flow: preserve the explicit legacy Ralph execution choice and run the old Ralph execution lane as an alternate, without changing the documented default Autopilot recommendation.
</Good>
<Bad>
Autopilot invents independent "Expansion", "QA", and "Validation" phases and treats them as the primary lifecycle.
Why bad: this bypasses the strict `$deep-interview -> $ralplan -> $ultragoal -> $code-review -> $ultraqa` contract.
</Bad>
</Examples>

© yangyuan-zhen, AGPL-3.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in .codex/skills/autopilot of yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 43e658b

Compare with similar skills

Autopilot next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Autopilot compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Autopilot this skillyangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather316—~5.8kAutomated safety check: PassAGPL-3.0
PRP LoopWirasm/prp2.3k—~894Automated safety check: PassMIT
Autoresearchleo-kuang-ai/spec-first107—~2.2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Copilot PR Autopilotgithub/awesome-copilot40k—~3.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
O2 Review Loopopenobserve/openobserve22k—~3.7kAutomated safety check: PassAGPL-3.0
Autoresearch Iteration Loopuditgoenka/autoresearch6.5k1 repos~2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • PRP Loop

    Wirasm/prp

    Runs the plan, implement and review pipeline detached in fresh headless sessions, looping review and fix until the pull request is clean.

    2.3k GitHub stars~894 tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Autoresearch

    leo-kuang-ai/spec-first

    Autonomous goal-directed iteration loop: modify, verify, keep/discard against a metric or a checkable success predicate, with bounded cycles, plateau/ceiling backstops, safety-screened commands, and…

    107 GitHub stars~2.2k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Copilot PR Autopilot

    github/awesome-copilot

    Official

    Copilot left 14 review comments on your PR — half are nits. An agent skill from github/awesome-copilot.

    40k GitHub stars~3.4k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Backend & APIsAuto-check passed
  • O2 Review Loop

    openobserve/openobserve

    Splits a change into planner, coder and independent reviewer roles: you confirm a spec, a subagent implements it, and a separate reviewer checks each round's local WIP commit.

    22k GitHub stars~3.7k tokensUpdated today
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Autoresearch Iteration Loop

    uditgoenka/autoresearch

    Runs an autonomous modify, verify, keep-or-discard loop against any metric, with subcommands for planning, debugging, fixing, security audits, shipping and more.

    6.5k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~2k tokens
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Install Loop Engineering

    cobusgreyling/loop-engineering

    Installs Loop Engineering into a project through the single @cobusgreyling/loop CLI, scaffolding a report-only loop and a readiness score.

    11k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~648 tokens
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed

More from yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather

All 26 skills in this repo
  • AI Slop Cleaner

    yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather

    [OMX] Run an anti-slop cleanup/refactor/deslop workflow. An agent skill from yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather.

    316 GitHub stars~2.2k tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Analyze

    yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather

    [OMX] Run read-only deep repository analysis and return a ranked synthesis with explicit confidence, concrete file references, and clear evidence-vs-inference boundaries.

    316 GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Autoresearch

    yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather

    [OMX] Stateful validator-gated research loop with native-hook persistence

    316 GitHub stars~786 tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Best Practice Research

    yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather

    [OMX] Bounded best-practice research wrapper using official/upstream evidence first

    316 GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Cancel

    yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather

    [OMX] Cancel any active OMX mode (autopilot, ralph, ultrawork, ecomode, ultraqa, swarm, ultrapilot, pipeline, team)

    316 GitHub stars~3.7k tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Configure Notifications

    yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather

    [OMX] Configure OMX notifications - unified entry point for all platforms

    316 GitHub stars~2.7k tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Questions about Autopilot

What does Autopilot do?

[OMX] Strict autonomous loop: $deep-interview - $ralplan - $ultragoal (+ $team if needed) - $code-review - $ultraqa. Autopilot is an agent skill from yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather.

When should I use Autopilot?

Autopilot fits situations like: tasks that involve Autonomous loops; tasks that involve Code review.

How do I install Autopilot in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather --skill autopilot -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (.codex/skills/autopilot in yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather) into .claude/skills/autopilot in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Autopilot in Codex?

Run `npx skills add yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather --skill autopilot -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (.codex/skills/autopilot in yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather) into .agents/skills/autopilot in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Autopilot in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather --skill autopilot -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/autopilot, .gemini/skills/autopilot, .github/skills/autopilot and .opencode/skills/autopilot in your project.

What does Autopilot need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Autopilot is instructions for the agent only.

Does Autopilot access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Autopilot safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Autopilot use?

Autopilot is published under the AGPL-3.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Autopilot use?

About 5.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 23k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Autopilot?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Autopilot: PRP Loop (Wirasm/prp, 2.3k stars), Autoresearch (leo-kuang-ai/spec-first, 107 stars), Copilot PR Autopilot (github/awesome-copilot, 40k stars) and O2 Review Loop (openobserve/openobserve, 22k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Autopilot?

yangyuan-zhen (a GitHub user) maintains it in yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather, which has 316 GitHub stars. The repository holds 26 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 20, 2026.

Source: yangyuan-zhen/PolyWeather on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.