Strict autonomous delivery loop that runs deep-interview, ralplan, ultragoal, code-review, and ultraqa in order with automatic re-planning when gates are not clean. Use on "autopilot", "autonomous", "build me", "create me", "make me", "full auto", "handle it all", or "I want a/an…".
Installation
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Strict autonomous delivery loop that runs deep-interview, ralplan, ultragoal, code-review, and ultraqa in order with automatic re-planning when gates are not clean. Use on "autopilot", "autonomous", "build me", "create me", "make me", "full auto", "handle it all", or "I want a/an…".
agent_created
true
triggers
["autopilot","autonomous","build me","create me","full auto","handle it all"]
Ported from oh-my-codex autopilot. OMX runtime conventions ($macro invocation, omx CLI, .omx/ state directory) are replaced with WorkBuddy idioms (Skill tool, Agent tool, task list, .omw/autopilot/<slug>/ sidecar).
Autopilot
Autopilot is the strict autonomous delivery loop for non-trivial work. Its recommended/default contract is exactly:
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 any legacy alternate loop as the default Autopilot path.
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", "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.
Do not use when
User wants to explore options or brainstorm — invoke the plan / ralplan skill.
User says "just explain", "draft only", or "what would you suggest" — respond conversationally.
User wants a single focused code change — invoke ultragoal directly, or do focused executor work.
User wants only review/critique of existing code — invoke code-review.
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. Represent progress with the task list (TaskCreate/TaskUpdate/TaskList), and persist durable artifacts under .omw/autopilot/<slug>/. Do not invent a separate execution framework.
Invoke the deep-interview skill (skill: deep-interview) to clarify intent, scope, non-goals, constraints, and decision boundaries.
Deep-interview is a structured question chain, not a one-question gate; treat the round cap as a ceiling, not a target.
After the user answers, 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.
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 main session resolves to a cheap/mini model lane (for example a *-mini, *spark*, or explicitly cheap/economy/lite model name), the initial planning/decomposition owner is a dedicated [planner] role (spawn a planner Agent); 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.
Invoke the ralplan skill (skill: ralplan) to produce/update PRD and test-spec artifacts. If planning_routing.owner is planner, use a dedicated [planner] Agent for the initial Planner draft/decomposition before the Architect→Critic consensus gates.
PRD/test-spec files alone are not completion evidence. Ralplan may hand off only after durable consensus evidence records a subsequent architect approval first and a subsequent critic approval second.
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, or implementation.
Required handoff artifact: an approved plan/test spec plus ralplan_consensus_gate evidence suitable for ultragoal.
Invoke the ultragoal skill (skill: ultragoal) from the approved ralplan artifacts.
Ultragoal owns implementation, tests, build/lint/typecheck evidence, cleanup, and final review gate discipline. Persist progress in .omw/autopilot/<slug>/ledger.jsonl.
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 ledger/checkpoint references suitable for code-review.
Phase code-review — merge-readiness gate
Invoke the code-review skill (skill: 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, 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.
Phase ultraqa — adversarial QA gate
Invoke the ultraqa skill (skill: 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, 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.
Pre-context intake
Before Phase deep-interview or ralplan starts or resumes:
Derive a task slug from the request.
Reuse the latest relevant .omw/autopilot/<slug>/context.md snapshot when available.
If none exists, create .omw/autopilot/<slug>/context.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
If brownfield facts are missing, run normal repo inspection (Read, Grep, Glob, read-only Bash) before or during deep-interview; do not skip the clarification gate merely because the task sounds actionable.
Carry the snapshot path in the task list and all handoff artifacts.
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 (task list + sidecar) before handing off.
Use existing skills and Workflow tools (deep-interview, ralplan, ultragoal, optional team, code-review, ultraqa); do not invent a separate execution framework.
Preserve legacy compatibility: if a user explicitly requests the old Ralph execution lane, use the ralph skill 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.
State management (task list + sidecar, not omx)
There is no omx binary in WorkBuddy. Represent Autopilot lifecycle state with the task list and a small JSON sidecar at .omw/autopilot/<slug>/state.json. State must be session-aware when a session id exists. If a richer MCP state surface becomes available later, equivalent 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 a standalone mode:"ralplan" over Autopilot.
On start: create tasks for each phase; write state.json with mode:"autopilot", active:true, current_phase:"deep-interview", iteration:1, review_cycle:0, phase_cycle:[...], and empty handoff slots.
On deep-interview -> ralplan: only after a gate proves the interview chain is explicitly complete or the user authorized a skip. Persist deep_interview_gate:{status:"complete", rationale:"<why requirements are complete>", handoff_summary:"<summary>"} (or equivalent non-empty rationale/summary) plus the clarified spec under handoff_artifacts.deep_interview. If a final 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"}. Do not leave deep-interview merely because the first question was answered or cleared.
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; any 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, with a recorded ralplan_architect_review.agent_role:"architect" and ralplan_architect_review.verdict:"approve" recorded before a ralplan_critic_review.agent_role:"critic" and ralplan_critic_review.verdict:"approve". Set current_phase:"ultragoal" and persist the plan/test-spec paths under handoff_artifacts.ralplan.
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 pass produced durable evidence; persist the clean review under handoff_artifacts.code_review with its source thread/skill/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 skill passes or agent/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 the cancel skill; preserve progress for resume rather than deleting handoff artifacts.
Continuation and resume
When the user says continue, resume, or keep going while Autopilot is active, read .omw/autopilot/<slug>/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.
Pipeline orchestrator
Autopilot may be represented by a configurable pipeline orchestrator when useful. The default Autopilot pipeline contract is:
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.
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 the cancel skill.
Otherwise, continue the loop until code-review is clean and ultraqa has passed or been explicitly skipped with evidence.
Final checklist
Phase deep-interview produced/updated clarified requirements or a concise spec
Phase ralplan produced/updated approved planning artifacts and durable sequential evidence from a subsequent architect approval followed by a subsequent critic approval
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 pass; 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
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: User: continue, 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: 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.
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.
