autopilot

name	autopilot
description	The whole coding loop on one deliberate yes: map, spec, critic-hardened plan, GitHub issues, parallel worktree implementers, fresh-context review loops, one PR with the evidence. Acts only on its itemized charter; parks what it can't settle honestly. Commands: /autopilot <task> [--merge], resume, status. It signs a charter and pushes branches, so it never auto-triggers — explicit invocation only.
disable-model-invocation	true

autopilot — the whole loop, one yes

/autopilot <task> — run the full pipeline, stop at an open PR /autopilot <task> --merge — also merge, once every gate is green /autopilot resume <change> — pick up a crashed, aborted, or parked run /autopilot status — report runs in flight under out/dev/

Answer one question: what would come back if this task were handed to a careful team and nobody watched over their shoulder? The other coding skills put a human at every gate; this one replaces those gates with the things that made them work — fresh-context review, diverse critique, and a test suite as the arbiter — and reserves the human for exceptions. Human on the loop, not in it: you sign once, you get a PR, and anything the pipeline couldn't settle honestly comes back parked, not guessed.

The charter — one yes, spelled out

The invocation is the consent. Echo this before running, then don't ask again:

• WILL: read anything in the repo; write state under out/dev/<slug>/; create GitHub issues labeled autopilot; create and push branches autopilot/<slug>/*; open one PR; comment on and close its own issues; with --merge, merge that PR once every gate is green.
• NEVER: push to the default branch directly, force-push, rewrite history, delete branches or issues it didn't create, weaken a test to get green, or touch anything outside this repo.

Auto mode — how the other skills run here

Autopilot drives map, feature, and done in auto mode, a shared convention: every approval gate becomes a self-approval on the record — the decision and its reason are appended to log.md instead of asked — and every verdict that would need a human becomes a PARK. The skills' own rules (task sizing, TDD, tripwires, never-weaken-tests) are unchanged; only the waiting is removed. In auto mode the run never calls a tool that stops to wait on a human — AskUserQuestion first among them (waiting on sub-agents or commands is fine): with nobody watching, such a call isn't a question, it's a deadlock. A decision only a human can settle is parked with the decision spelled out — never waited on, never guessed.

Step 0 — Preflight

• Confirm: a git repo, a clean tree, gh authenticated. Without gh, degrade honestly — local task files instead of issues, stop at the branch instead of a PR — and say so in the run header.
• Find the test command (AGENTS.md, package.json, Makefile, pyproject.toml, CI config). No test suite? Don't refuse — schedule a testing-bootstrap phase as the plan's first wave: stand up the runner, then write characterization tests around exactly the code the plan will touch. Without an objective test to pass, every review loop below is just one model agreeing with another; the bootstrap fixes that.
• Open out/dev/<slug>/log.md with the run header: charter, stop point (PR / merge), test command, start commit.

Step 1 — Orient

Run map in auto mode: no AGENTS.md → generate one; one exists → refresh only if stale. Every downstream agent starts oriented instead of cold.

Step 2 — Spec: interview the codebase, not the user

feature Step 1 with the questions turned inward — the facts-vs-decisions split holds with no user present. Every fact is answered by reading code, docs, tests, and git log; whatever evidence can't settle — an open decision or an unverifiable fact — is never resolved silently: it becomes a numbered assumption (A1…) in spec.md, visible and revisable at the PR, where wrong assumptions are cheap to catch. The spec remains the contract every review below is judged against.

Step 3 — Plan, hardened by critique instead of approval

Write plan.md per feature Step 2 — 2–5-minute tasks, exact files, own verification step, dependency order. Then replace the human approval with a bounded critique loop: parallel critic sub-agents, each with a different lens — feasibility, hidden dependencies & ordering, test coverage, scope creep — each returning blocking findings or an approval. If another model's agent CLI is installed (detect per done Step 2), give one critic seat to it: fresh context varies the perspective, a different model varies the blind spots. Fix the blocking findings, re-run the critics once. Two rounds maximum: past that, critique stops finding real problems and starts agreeing with itself. Surviving blocking findings park the run at the plan stage — a plan the critics can't pass is the user's call, not a coin flip.

Step 4 — Tasks become GitHub issues

One issue per plan task, created in dependency order so every depends-on: #n names a real number: the full briefing (a fresh agent must be able to execute from the issue text alone), the files it touches, its verification command, and the spec IDs it implements ([D2, A1], where one applies). Label autopilot, title [<slug>] <task name>. Record issue numbers back into plan.md. Issue prose describes behavior, not code — "the sync service drops the patch", never applyPatch() at line 42, no file paths or line numbers in prose; analysis artifacts cite file:line because they're verified now, tracker artifacts must outlive the refactor. (The files-touched list stays — it's the worker's briefing, not durable prose.)

Local files stay canonical; the issues are the published mirror — and the hand-off that actually reaches the workers, since the run's out/ state is uncommitted mid-run and invisible inside the worktrees below.

Step 5 — Dispatch in dependency waves

• One sub-agent per task, in an isolated git worktree, on branch autopilot/<slug>/task-<n>, with the full task briefing in its prompt.
• Independent tasks run concurrently; a dependent wave starts only when the tasks it depends on have merged (Step 7).
• Each agent works by feature Step 3, verbatim: failing test first, then the minimal green, then a checkpoint commit — never weaken an existing test, no TODOs or skips as a path to green, two failed attempts at the same task → stop and park, don't grind the wall.

Step 6 — Review loop, per task, until clean

• Fresh-context reviewers per done Step 2: they see only the diff, the task briefing, and the spec — never the implementer's conversation. A reviewer with no memory of writing the code has no loyalty to it. Spec-compliance first, correctness second, style never. That includes done's optional cross-model second opinion when a codex/gemini CLI is on the PATH — it earns the most here, where no human sits at any gate.
• Run done's fake-green tripwires on every diff: tests modified or deleted in the diff that makes them pass, new skips, hardcoded expectations, TODO stand-ins.
• Findings go back to the implementer to fix, then re-review. Clean → the task is merge-ready. Three rounds without clean → PARK the task with the findings on the record; the rest of the run keeps flowing.
• The arbiter is the test suite: a reviewer's approval doesn't override a red suite, and a green suite doesn't excuse a spec violation.

Step 7 — Integrate wave by wave

The orchestrator merges merge-ready task branches into autopilot/<slug>/main in dependency order, running the full suite after every merge. A red integration points at the merge that broke it — that task returns to Step 6 with the failure attached; independent tasks keep flowing. Only the orchestrator merges; workers never touch each other's branches.

Step 8 — Ship

1. Run done in auto mode on the integrated diff — the full evidence checklist, including actually running the change, with output quoted.
2. Push the integration branch; open one PR: the spec's summary, the evidence checklist, Closes #n for every completed issue — and parked tasks listed plainly, not swept.
3. Comment each issue with its outcome; parked issues stay open with the park reason.
4. --merge and every gate green → merge (never force, branch protection respected). Otherwise the PR is the deliverable — merging is yours.
5. Report in chat and log.md: per task — SHIPPED / AT PR / PARKED (why) — and where human attention is actually needed. Clean up worktrees; archive out/dev/<slug>/ once merged.

State and the escape hatch

out/dev/<slug>/: spec.md, plan.md (tasks + issue #s + status), log.md (append-only; the orchestrator is its only writer — parallel writers corrupt logs), tasks/<n>.md, .work/. Resume uses feature's ritual: log, then plan, then git log, then continue at the first unfinished task — never trust residual conversation memory.

Abort: create out/dev/<slug>/ABORT (empty file) and the orchestrator stops cleanly at the next wave boundary — worktrees intact, state saved, resume picks it back up.

Guardrails

• The charter is the whole consent. Nothing outside the WILL list, ever — scope discovered mid-run becomes a follow-up issue, not a silent expansion of the mandate.
• Park, don't guess. Ambiguity a critic loop can't settle, a task two attempts couldn't crack, a review three rounds couldn't clean — parked with the evidence, run continues. A guessed answer costs more than a parked task.
• Tests are the arbiter. No LLM verdict — critic, reviewer, or implementer, local model or cross — outranks the suite. No suite → bootstrap one before implementing.
• Bounded loops everywhere. Two critique rounds, two implementation attempts, three review rounds. Unbounded self-correction diverges or rubber-stamps; the bounds are what keep it honest.
• Inherited hard rules hold. Never weaken a test, no fake-green, scope contract, append-only honest logging — every rule from feature/done applies verbatim; autonomy removed the waiting, not the rules.
• Honest report or no report. Parked tasks appear in the PR body and the final report with reasons — a run that hides its failures has failed twice.