| name | aris-autonomous-ml-research |
| description | Use ARIS (Auto-Research-In-Sleep) for autonomous ML research — idea generation, paper review, experiment automation, and cross-model collaboration with Claude Code, Codex, or any LLM agent. |
| triggers | ["set up ARIS for autonomous research","use ARIS to generate research ideas","run autonomous ML experiments with ARIS","review a paper using ARIS cross-model workflow","configure ARIS research pipeline","help me with ARIS research automation","write a rebuttal using ARIS","start an ARIS research workflow"] |
ARIS Autonomous ML Research
Skill by ara.so — Claude Code Skills collection.
ARIS (Auto-Research-In-Sleep) is a lightweight Markdown-based system for autonomous ML research that orchestrates cross-model collaboration. It enables AI agents to discover ideas, review papers, run experiments, and write rebuttals — all autonomously. Works with Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor, Trae, Antigravity, or any LLM agent.
What ARIS Does
- Idea Generation: Automatically discovers research ideas from arXiv papers, GitHub repos, or research directions
- Cross-Model Review: Uses different LLMs for execution vs. review to break self-play blind spots (e.g., Claude Code executes, GPT-5.4 reviews)
- Experiment Automation: Clones codebases, runs experiments, analyzes results
- Paper Writing: Generates drafts with auto-review loops to improve quality
- Rebuttal Generation: Parses reviews, builds strategy, drafts rebuttals under character limits
- Research Wiki: Persistent knowledge base tracking papers, ideas, experiments, and claims
Installation
As Claude Code Skills (In-Editor)
cd ~/claude-code-skills
git clone https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep.git aris
cd aris/skills
As Standalone CLI (ARIS-Code)
git clone https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep.git
cd Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/aris-code
cargo build --release
./target/release/aris-code
Environment Setup
ARIS requires API keys for LLM providers:
export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
export OPENAI_API_KEY=your_key_here
export MOONSHOT_API_KEY=your_key_here
export MINIMAX_API_KEY=your_key_here
export GLM_API_KEY=your_key_here
export DEEPSEEK_API_KEY=your_key_here
export DOUBAO_API_KEY=your_key_here
Key Commands
Standalone CLI Commands
/setup
/research-pipeline "your research direction"
/research-pipeline "improve method X" -- ref paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04329, base repo: https://github.com/org/project
/rebuttal "paper/ + reviews" -- venue: ICML, character limit: 5000
/plan "implement transformer variant"
/wiki add paper <arxiv_url>
/wiki add idea "your idea description"
/wiki query "search term"
/wiki export
/meta-optimize
/tasks
/tasks add "task description"
/tasks complete <id>
/help
/models
Claude Code Skill Commands
When using ARIS as Claude Code skills, trigger workflows with natural language:
"Use ARIS to review this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04329"
"Generate research ideas about discrete diffusion models"
"Run the research pipeline for improving attention mechanisms"
"Help me write a rebuttal for these ICML reviews"
Core Workflows
1. Full Research Pipeline
End-to-end autonomous research:
/research-pipeline "factorized gap in discrete diffusion LMs"
What happens:
- Discovers related papers from arXiv
- Generates novel research ideas
- Reviews ideas with external LLM (cross-model)
- Runs experiments on top ideas
- Writes paper draft
- Auto-reviews and improves draft
- Outputs final paper + code
With reference paper + codebase:
/research-pipeline "improve attention efficiency" -- ref paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.xxxx, base repo: https://github.com/org/attention-impl
ARIS reads the paper → finds weaknesses → uses that specific codebase → generates targeted improvements.
2. Targeted Idea Discovery
Generate ideas from specific sources:
"""
Use Workflow 1: DiscoverPaper skill to find ideas from:
- arXiv search: "vision transformers"
- GitHub repo: https://github.com/google-research/vision_transformer
- Local paper: ./papers/vit_analysis.pdf
"""
ARIS will:
- Parse papers/code
- Extract key insights
- Generate 5-10 novel ideas
- Route to external reviewer
- Return scored, critiqued ideas
3. Paper Review Loop
Multi-round review with automated improvements:
/review-paper paper_draft.md --rounds 3
"Review this draft and improve it through 3 rounds: ./draft.md"
Review process:
- External LLM critiques (e.g., GPT-5.4)
- Claude Code addresses weaknesses
- Repeat until score plateau or max rounds
- Final output with score progression graph
4. Rebuttal Generation
Parse reviews and draft rebuttal:
/rebuttal "paper_dir/" -- venue: ICML, character limit: 5000
Phases:
- Parse reviews: Extract all reviewer concerns
- Build strategy: Map concerns → responses
- Draft rebuttal: Generate structured response
- Format check: Ensure under character limit
Quick mode (stop before drafting):
/rebuttal "paper_dir/" -- venue: NeurIPS, character limit: 8000, quick mode: true
Configuration
Model Selection
ARIS supports multiple executor + reviewer combinations:
In standalone CLI:
/setup
In skill files (YAML frontmatter):
---
executor: claude-opus-4.7
reviewer: gpt-5.5
---
Available executors:
claude-opus-4.7, claude-sonnet-4.5
gpt-5.5, gpt-5.4, o1, o3, o4
kimi-k2.5, kimi-k3
minimax-m2.7, minimax-pro
glm-5, glm-5-plus
deepseek-v3, deepseek-r1
doubao-lite, doubao-pro
Reviewer routing:
reviewer: oracle-pro
reviewer: gpt-5.4
reviewer: claude-opus
reviewer: auto
Research Wiki Configuration
Enable persistent memory across sessions:
/setup
wiki:
enabled: true
path: ~/.aris/wiki/
auto_commit: true
Wiki structure:
~/.aris/wiki/
├── papers/ # Tracked papers
├── ideas/ # Research ideas
├── experiments/ # Experiment results
├── claims/ # Key claims and evidence
└── graph.json # Relationship graph
Proxy and Custom Endpoints
HTTP/HTTPS proxy:
export HTTP_PROXY=http://localhost:8080
export HTTPS_PROXY=http://localhost:8080
Custom API endpoints:
/setup
Local models (LM Studio/Ollama):
/setup
Code Examples
Example 1: Idea Discovery from Paper
"""
I want to discover ideas from this paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14342 (Transformer-XL)
Focus on: attention mechanism improvements
"""
Output structure:
## Discovered Ideas (Reviewed)
### Idea 1: Factorized Relative Position Embeddings (Score: 8.5/10)
**Core insight:** XL uses dense relative position matrix — factorize it.
**Reviewer critique (GPT-5.4):**
- ✅ Novelty: High (not explored in XL paper)
- ✅ Feasibility: Doable (standard tensor decomposition)
- ⚠️ Impact: Need to verify on long sequences
- ⚠️ Risk: May hurt performance if rank too low
**Next steps:** Implement SVD-based factorization, benchmark on PG-19
---
### Idea 2: Learnable Decay for Relative Attention (Score: 7.2/10)
...
Example 2: Experiment Automation
"""
Clone https://github.com/kimiyoung/transformer-xl
Implement Idea 1 (factorized position embeddings)
Run on enwik8 benchmark
Compare with baseline
"""
Generated experiment code:
import torch
import torch.nn as nn
class FactorizedRelativeAttention(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, d_model, n_heads, rank=64):
super().__init__()
self.d_model = d_model
self.n_heads = n_heads
self.rank = rank
self.U = nn.Parameter(torch.randn(2048, rank))
self.V = nn.Parameter(torch.randn(d_model, rank))
def forward(self, q, k, v, pos_emb):
rel_pos = self.U @ self.V.t()
Experiment results:
## Experiment Results: Factorized Relative Position
| Metric | Baseline (XL) | Ours (Factorized) | Δ |
|--------|---------------|-------------------|---|
| PPL (enwik8) | 1.06 | 1.08 | +0.02 ↓ |
| Speed (tok/s) | 12.3k | 18.7k | +52% ↑ |
| Memory (GB) | 11.2 | 7.8 | -30% ↑ |
| Params (M) | 277 | 261 | -5.8% ↑ |
✅ **Success**: 52% faster, 30% less memory, minor PPL degradation acceptable for long-context tasks.
Example 3: Paper Writing with Auto-Review
"""
Write a paper about the factorized position embeddings experiment.
Title: "Efficient Transformers via Factorized Relative Attention"
Target venue: ICML 2026
Sections: Abstract, Introduction, Method, Experiments, Conclusion
"""
Review loop:
## Round 1 Review (GPT-5.4, Score: 6.5/10)
**Strengths:**
- Clear motivation (long-context efficiency)
- Solid experimental results
**Weaknesses:**
- Missing ablation on rank hyperparameter
- No comparison with Linear Attention baseline
- Introduction lacks related work on efficient Transformers
**Suggestions:**
1. Add Table 2: Rank ablation (r=16,32,64,128)
2. Cite Performer, Linformer in related work
3. Add wall-clock time comparison
---
## Round 2 Review (GPT-5.4, Score: 8.1/10)
**Improvements:**
✅ Added rank ablation (Table 2)
✅ Expanded related work
✅ Wall-clock benchmarks included
**Remaining issues:**
- Figure 3 caption unclear
- Conclusion should mention future work
---
## Round 3 Review (GPT-5.4, Score: 8.8/10)
**Near-ready:** Minor edits only. Ready for submission.
Example 4: Rebuttal Generation
/rebuttal "paper/ reviews.txt" -- venue: ICML, character limit: 5000
Generated rebuttal structure:
# Rebuttal to ICML Reviews
**Character count: 4847 / 5000**
## Response to Reviewer 1 (Score: 6 → ?)
**Q1: "Rank ablation missing — how does r affect performance?"**
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added Table 2 (Appendix) showing rank ablation (r=16,32,64,128). Key findings: r=64 is optimal (PPL 1.08, speed +52%), r=128 matches baseline quality (PPL 1.06) but slower, r=32 degrades PPL to 1.15. We will include this in the camera-ready.
**Q2: "No comparison with Linear Attention methods."**
Valid point. We added Performer and FNet baselines (Table 3). Our method outperforms Performer by 0.04 PPL while being 20% faster due to factorization locality. Updated draft attached.
---
## Response to Reviewer 2 (Score: 7 → ?)
**Q1: "Scalability to 100k+ sequences unclear."**
We have run additional experiments on PG-19 (100k context). Results: our method maintains +45% speedup with PPL degradation <0.05. Memory scales O(r·L) vs O(L²) for standard XL. Will add to Section 4.3.
---
**Common concern (R1, R3): "Related work incomplete."**
We have expanded Section 2 to cite Linformer, Performer, Longformer, and BigBird. Table 1 now includes complexity comparison.
---
**Summary:** We address all major concerns with new experiments and expanded analysis. We believe these changes strengthen the paper significantly.
Common Patterns
Pattern 1: Iterative Improvement Loop
ideas = discover_papers("diffusion models")
reviewed_ideas = cross_model_review(ideas)
top_idea = select_highest_score(reviewed_ideas)
results = run_experiment(top_idea)
paper = write_paper(results)
final_paper = auto_review_loop(paper, rounds=3)
Pattern 2: Multi-Source Idea Generation
sources = [
"arxiv:diffusion+models",
"github:CompVis/stable-diffusion",
"local:./papers/ddpm_analysis.pdf"
]
ideas = discover_from_sources(sources)
ideas = deduplicate_ideas(ideas)
ideas = cross_review(ideas)
Pattern 3: Targeted Paper Improvement
paper_url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04329"
base_repo = "https://github.com/org/paper-code"
weaknesses = extract_weaknesses(paper_url)
ideas = generate_targeted_ideas(weaknesses, base_repo)
results = run_experiments(ideas, base_repo)
Pattern 4: Cross-Model Review Chain
executor = "claude-opus-4.7"
reviewer_1 = "gpt-5.4"
reviewer_2 = "oracle-pro"
draft = generate_draft(executor)
critique_1 = review(draft, reviewer_1)
improved = revise(draft, critique_1, executor)
critique_2 = review(improved, reviewer_2)
final = revise(improved, critique_2, executor)
Troubleshooting
API Key Issues
export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
/setup
Model Availability
/models
Rate Limits
retry:
max_attempts: 5
backoff_multiplier: 2.0
initial_delay: 1.0
Cross-Model Review Not Working
echo $OPENAI_API_KEY
echo $ANTHROPIC_API_KEY
/setup
Experiment Failures
experiment:
timeout: 7200
training:
batch_size: 16
gradient_accumulation: 4
Wiki Corruption
cd ~/.aris/wiki
rm graph.json
/wiki rebuild
rm -rf ~/.aris/wiki
/setup
Character Limit in Rebuttal
/rebuttal "reviews" -- character limit: 5000, quick mode: true
/rebuttal "reviews" -- character limit: 5000, resume: strategy.md
Local Model Connection
curl http://localhost:1234/v1/models
Permission Issues (Standalone CLI)
/setup
security:
tool_permission: prompt
Advanced Features
Research Wiki (Persistent Memory)
Track papers, ideas, experiments across sessions:
/wiki add paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14342
/wiki add idea "Factorized relative position embeddings for Transformer-XL"
/wiki link idea:1 paper:1 "inspired_by"
/wiki query "ideas from Transformer-XL paper"
/wiki export ./research_notes/
Relationship types:
inspired_by: idea → paper
improves_on: idea → idea
validated_by: idea → experiment
contradicts: claim → claim
Meta-Optimization (Self-Improvement)
ARIS analyzes its own logs and proposes skill improvements:
/meta-optimize
Example meta-optimization:
## Detected Pattern: Review scores often plateau at 8.0
**Root cause:** Reviewer prompt lacks specific grading rubric.
**Proposed fix:**
```diff
--- skills/workflow-3-write-paper.md
+++ skills/workflow-3-write-paper.md
@@ -15,6 +15,12 @@
Review this paper draft and provide:
- Score (1-10)
- Strengths (3-5 points)
- Weaknesses (3-5 points)
+
+**Grading rubric:**
+- 9-10: Publication-ready, minor edits only
+- 7-8: Strong work, needs revisions
+- 5-6: Major issues, needs rework
+- 1-4: Fundamental flaws
Apply this patch? (y/n): y
### Plan Mode
Break down complex tasks before execution:
```bash
/plan "implement a vision transformer from scratch and train on CIFAR-10"
# ARIS generates step-by-step plan:
# 1. Set up environment (PyTorch, datasets)
# 2. Implement patch embedding layer
# 3. Implement transformer encoder blocks
# 4. Implement classification head
# 5. Write training loop
# 6. Run experiments with different configs
# 7. Analyze results
# Execute plan:
/execute-plan
Integration with Other Tools
Cursor Integration
{
"cursor.aiRules": [
"Use ARIS skills from ~/claude-code-skills/aris/skills/",
"For research tasks, trigger ARIS workflows",
"For paper review, use workflow-3-write-paper.md"
]
}
Trae Integration
See TRAE_ARIS_RUNBOOK_EN.md for detailed setup.
Codex CLI Integration
cd skills/skills-codex/
codex chat --system-file workflow-1-discover-paper.md
Oracle MCP (GPT-5.4 Pro Reviewer)
npm install -g @steipete/oracle
reviewer: oracle-pro
Best Practices
- Start small: Use targeted workflows (Workflow 1-4) before full pipeline
- Validate reviews: Cross-model review is powerful but not infallible — verify critiques
- Use Research Wiki: Enable persistent memory for long-term projects
- Monitor costs: GPT-5.4 Pro (oracle) is expensive; use for final review only
- Version control: ARIS creates Git branches for experiments — commit frequently
- Iterate: Auto-review loops improve quality — aim for 3+ rounds
- Read logs: ARIS logs all LLM interactions in
~/.aris/logs/ — useful for debugging
- Customize skills: Fork and modify SKILL.md files for your domain
Resources
License: MIT
Contributing: PRs welcome — see CONTRIBUTING.md