auto

name	auto
description	Autonomous build loop with Karpathy ratcheting, GAN evaluator, and session chaining. Iterates story groups until all features pass or stopping criteria met.
argument-hint	[--mode full|lean|solo|turbo] [--group GROUP_ID]
context	fork

Auto Skill

Autonomous build loop implementing Karpathy's ratcheting pattern with GAN-style generator-evaluator separation, agent teams for parallel execution, sprint contracts for verifiable done-criteria, self-healing with failure-driven learning, and session chaining for multi-context-window builds.

---

SECTION 1: Usage, Prerequisites, and Agent Delegation

Usage

/auto
/auto --mode lean
/auto --mode solo
/auto --group D

• --mode controls which ratchet gates are enforced. Default: full. Options: full, lean, solo, turbo.
• --group resumes or targets a specific dependency group. If omitted, picks the next unfinished group from the dependency graph.

Prerequisites

Before /auto can run, the following must exist:

• specs/stories/ — approved story files with acceptance criteria.
• specs/design/ — approved architecture artifacts including api-contracts.md and component-map.md.
• .claude/program.md — project constraints and conventions.
• features.json — feature tracking file (created by /spec).
• specs/stories/dependency-graph.md — group ordering and dependencies.
• claude-progress.txt — session tracking file (created by /build phase 4).

If any prerequisite is missing, stop and report what is absent. Do not proceed with partial context.

Agent Delegation

Critical rule: /auto orchestrates but NEVER implements code directly.

• /auto is the orchestrator. It reads state, makes decisions, spawns agents, and manages the loop.
• Code generation is delegated to the generator agent (via /implement or direct agent spawn).
• Code verification is delegated to the evaluator agent (via /evaluate or direct agent spawn).
• Design critique is delegated to the design-critic agent.
• /auto never writes application code, tests, or configuration files itself.

---

SECTION 2: Context Recovery (Step 1 of Every Iteration)

At the start of EVERY iteration — including the first — read these files in order:

1. .claude/program.md — Constraints may have changed mid-run. Re-read every iteration. Never cache.
2. .claude/state/learned-rules.md — Accumulated project rules. Inject verbatim into ALL agent prompts spawned this iteration.
3. claude-progress.txt — Read the LAST session block (the block after the final === Session marker). Extract: current_group, groups_completed, groups_remaining, last_commit, next_action.
4. features.json — Current pass/fail state for all features. Determines what work remains.
5. specs/stories/dependency-graph.md — Pick the next unfinished group. A group is "unfinished" if any of its stories' features are not passing in features.json. Respect dependency ordering: do not start a group whose upstream dependencies have failing features.

If claude-progress.txt indicates a current_group that is not yet complete, resume that group. Otherwise, select the next unfinished group in dependency order.

---

SECTION 3: Sprint Contract Negotiation (Steps 2-3)

Sprint contracts define the verifiable done-criteria for a group. Two-step propose-approve process using generator and evaluator agents.

Step 2 — Generator Proposes Contract

Spawn generator as a subagent with this prompt:

Read stories [list IDs for this group], specs/design/api-contracts.md, specs/design/component-map.md. Propose a sprint contract for group {ID}. Include: api_checks, playwright_checks, design_checks, architecture_checks, features list. Write the contract to sprint-contracts/{group}.json.

The generator produces a draft contract based on the story acceptance criteria and the architecture design.

Step 3 — Evaluator Approves Contract

Spawn evaluator as a subagent with this prompt:

Read the proposed sprint contract at sprint-contracts/{group}.json. Review each check against the story acceptance criteria and API contracts. Add any missing checks. Remove any checks that do not trace to an acceptance criterion. Write the final contract to the same path.

Rules:

• No back-and-forth. The evaluator has final say. The generator does not get to dispute.
• Contract is immutable after negotiation. Once the evaluator writes the final version, no one edits it.
• Skip in Solo mode. In Solo mode, the generator works directly without contracts or evaluator verification.

---

SECTION 4: Agent Team Execution (Step 4)

Spawn the generator agent to create and manage a Claude Code agent team for the current group.

Dependency Handshake

Before spawning teammates, the generator analyzes the component map:

1. Identifies shared files (files in 2+ stories)
2. Identifies interface boundaries (Produces: / Consumes: in component map)
3. Builds a micro-DAG grouping teammates into execution phases
4. Designates integrators for shared files

Log the micro-DAG to iteration-log.md.

If no cross-dependencies exist, all teammates spawn in parallel (legacy behavior).

Phased Execution

Phase	Who	Starts When	Must Do
1	Teammates with no upstream deps	Immediately	Implement + commit typed interface contracts
2	Teammates consuming Phase 1 outputs	All Phase 1 teammates complete	Code against committed interface contracts
3	Integrators for shared files	All Phase 2 teammates complete	Collect declared additions, write to shared files

Max 5 concurrent teammates per phase. Batch in groups of 5 if more.

Teammate Spawn Prompt

Every teammate receives:

• Story acceptance criteria (from specs/stories/story-NNN.md)
• File ownership (from specs/design/component-map.md)
• Learned rules (from .claude/state/learned-rules.md — inject verbatim)
• Quality principles (from .claude/skills/code-gen/SKILL.md)
• Interface contracts from upstream teammates (Phase 2+ only)
• If story involves external API: .claude/skills/code-gen/references/api-integration-patterns.md

Solo Mode

In Solo mode, the generator works alone sequentially. No team spawning, no phases. Read stories in dependency order and implement one at a time.

Model Tiering

Role	Model	Rationale
/auto orchestrator	Opus	Judgment, architectural decisions
Evaluator	Opus	Skeptical verification
Design critic	Opus	Subjective visual judgment
Generator lead	Sonnet	Coordination, lower cost
Generator teammates	Sonnet	Mechanical implementation
Security reviewer	Sonnet	Pattern matching

Configure via project-manifest.json field execution.model_tier.

---

SECTION 5: Ratchet Gate (Step 5)

After the agent team completes, run the ratchet gate. The ratchet is monotonic: progress never regresses. Six sub-gates, mode-dependent:

Gate	Full	Lean	Solo	Turbo
1. Unit tests (pytest, vitest)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (per commit)
2. Lint + types (ruff, mypy, tsc)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (per commit)
3. Coverage >= baseline	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (per commit)
4. Architecture (files exist, schema validation)	Yes	Yes	No	Once at end
5. Evaluator (API + Playwright vs running Docker)	Yes	Yes	No	Once at end
6. Design critic (vision scoring, GAN loop)	Yes	No	No	Once at end

Turbo Mode (for highly capable models)

For builds using Opus 4.6+ where the model can sustain coherence across long tasks:

• Generator works without story group decomposition — implements all stories sequentially in a single pass
• Sprint contracts NOT negotiated per-group — one contract for the entire build
• Evaluator runs ONCE at the end (not per-group)
• Ratchet gates 1-3 still run after each commit (tests + lint + coverage)
• Design critic runs once at the end
• Significantly cheaper (~$30-50) but less incremental verification

Use when: Model is highly capable AND project is well-specified AND you trust the generator to self-correct. Do NOT use when: External API integrations, complex multi-service architecture, or first time using the harness.

Fast Lane (trivial changes)

Skip gates 4-6 (architecture, evaluator, design critic) for commits that ONLY contain:

• Lint/format fixes (ruff auto-fix, eslint --fix)
• Documentation updates (.md files only)
• Type annotation fixes (no logic changes)
• Learned rules updates

Detection: If git diff --name-only shows only .md files, or if the commit message starts with fix: lint or docs:, skip the evaluator. Gates 1-3 (tests + lint + coverage) always run.

This prevents the expensive evaluator from blocking trivial housekeeping changes.

Gate 1 — Unit Tests

cd backend && uv run pytest -x -q && cd ..
cd frontend && npm test && cd ..

Both must pass with zero failures. The -x flag stops at first failure for fast feedback.

Gate 2 — Lint + Types

# Backend
uv run ruff check . && uv run mypy src/
# Frontend
npm run lint && npm run typecheck

All four commands must exit with code 0.

Gate 3 — Coverage >= Baseline

uv run pytest --cov=src --cov-report=term-missing -q | grep "^TOTAL" | awk '{print $NF}'

Compare the result with .claude/state/coverage-baseline.txt. The new coverage percentage must be greater than or equal to the baseline AND >= 80% (hard floor). If it drops below either threshold, the gate FAILS — even if all tests pass.

Coverage policy (ref: "AI is forcing us to write good code" by Steve Krenzel):

• Floor: 80%. No commit may drop below this. The ratchet gate BLOCKS.
• Target: 100%. Every line the agent wrote must be verified by a test. At 100%, any uncovered line is an unambiguous signal of missing verification.
• TDD enforced: Tests are written BEFORE implementation. The generator and teammates must follow the red-green-refactor cycle: write failing test → implement → verify pass → commit.

Gate 4 — Architecture Checks

Spawn evaluator to verify architecture_checks from the sprint contract:

• All files in files_must_exist must be present on disk.
• Schema validation against specs/design/api-contracts.schema.json if specified.

Gate 5 — Evaluator (API + Playwright)

Spawn evaluator with the full sprint contract. The evaluator runs:

• All api_checks against the live Docker stack.
• All playwright_checks against the running UI.

The evaluator writes its report to specs/reviews/evaluator-report.md.

Gate 6 — Design Critic (Full Mode Only)

Spawn design-critic on every page listed in the sprint contract's design_checks. The critic screenshots each page, scores visual fidelity, and returns PASS/FAIL per check. See SECTION 9 for the full GAN loop if scores are below threshold.

---

SECTION 6: PASS/FAIL Handling (Steps 6-7)

On PASS (All Gates Clear)

Execute these steps in order:

1. Commit: git add -A && git commit -m "feat: implement group {group}"
2. Update features.json: Set passes: true for all features in this group's sprint contract.
3. Update claude-progress.txt: Append a new session block (see SECTION 10 for format).
4. Update iteration-log.md: Append entry with group ID, timestamp, verdict, and summary.
5. Update coverage-baseline.txt: Write the new coverage percentage (ratchet up).
6. Next group: Return to SECTION 2 (context recovery) for the next iteration.

On FAIL — Self-Healing Loop (Max 3 Attempts)

Do not immediately revert. Attempt targeted self-healing first.

Attempt 1-3:

1. Diagnose: Invoke superpowers:systematic-debugging to analyze the failure before attempting a fix. This prevents jumping to conclusions and ensures the root cause is identified. Read the evaluator report (specs/reviews/evaluator-report.md) for specific failure details. Identify the exact check that failed and the error output.

2. Classify the failure into one of 10 categories:

Category	Signal	Auto-Fix Strategy
Lint/format	ruff/eslint error output	ruff check --fix && ruff format
Type error	mypy/tsc error with file:line	Fix the type annotation at the specified location
Test failure	pytest/vitest assertion error	Fix the production code, NOT the test
Import error	ImportError / ModuleNotFoundError	Fix the import path or __init__.py
Coverage drop	Coverage % below baseline	Add tests for the specific uncovered lines
API check fail	HTTP 500/404/wrong schema	Read docker compose logs backend --tail=50, identify root cause from stack trace, fix service/router
Playwright fail	Element not found / assertion error	Read the selector, fix the component
Design score low	Score below threshold	Apply the critique text, regenerate the UI
Docker fail	Container exit code / won't start	Read docker compose logs, fix config or deps
Architecture drift	Schema mismatch / missing file	Read the schema, fix the response or create the file

3. Spawn generator to apply the targeted fix. The generator prompt must include:

   • The structured failure JSON from specs/reviews/eval-failures-NNN.json (see evaluator agent for schema).
   • The category and auto-fix strategy from the table above.
   • All learned rules.
   • Instruction to fix ONLY the failing issue — no other changes.
   • Accumulated prior_attempts: On attempt 2, include attempt 1's fix description and result. On attempt 3, include both. This prevents the generator from re-trying the same fix.

   Error type to fix strategy mapping:

   error_type	Strategy
   lint_format	Run auto-fix tools (ruff check --fix, eslint --fix)
   type_error	Fix annotation at file:line from stack trace
   import_error	Check module path, fix import statement
   key_error	Check data shape at source — log incoming data, fix accessor
   timeout	Check if service is started, increase timeout, add retry
   connection_refused	Verify service URL in config, check port mapping
   validation_error	Compare request/response against schema, fix model
   assertion_error	Read test assertion, compare expected vs actual, fix logic
   api_transient	Retry evaluator check once (code may be correct, API was flaky). If retry passes, do not count as a self-heal attempt.
   api_permanent	Fix wrapper error handling or request format

4. Re-run the failed gate (not all gates — just the one that failed).

5. 3rd failure — hard stop for this group:

   • Revert changes: git checkout -- .
   • Log the failure to .claude/state/failures.md with group ID, failure category, all three attempt summaries.

---

SECTION 7: App Lifecycle Management

/auto is responsible for starting and stopping the application. The evaluator does NOT manage the app lifecycle.

Read verification.mode from project-manifest.json. Default: docker.

Mode: docker (default)

Startup:

1. Run bash init.sh before first evaluator check
2. Run health-check retry loop (see evaluator agent for protocol)
3. If health check fails: FAIL the current group, log to failures.md

Between Groups:

docker compose up -d --build

Wait for health check before handing off to evaluator.

Teardown:

docker compose down -v

Error Context: docker compose logs --tail=50 {service_name}

Mode: local

Startup:

1. Read verification.local.start_commands from manifest
2. Start each command as a background process, capture stdout/stderr to .claude/state/process-{name}.log
3. Run health-check retry loop against configured URLs

Between Groups: Kill and restart processes (re-run start commands).

Teardown: Kill all background processes started by the orchestrator.

Error Context: Read from .claude/state/process-{name}.log

Mode: stub

Startup:

1. Read verification.stub.schema_source from manifest
2. Generator creates a lightweight mock server (FastAPI or Express) that serves schema-valid example responses for every endpoint in the schema
3. Start the mock server on a free port
4. Run health-check retry loop

Between Groups: Regenerate mock server if schema has been amended (check specs/design/amendments/).

Teardown: Kill mock server process.

Error Context: Stub mismatch reports — when a request doesn't match any endpoint in the schema, log the requested path and method.

Stub mode limitations: Layer 1 checks validate request/response shapes but cannot verify business logic. Layer 2 (Playwright) skipped unless a separate frontend URL is configured.

Worktree Isolation (All Modes)

When using --worktree flag, each worktree gets its own app instance:

• Docker mode: different port mappings (configured via project-manifest.json)
• Local mode: different port arguments in start commands
• Stub mode: different mock server port (auto-selected)

---

SECTION 8: Architecture Amendment Detection

After each agent team completes (before the ratchet gate):

1. Check specs/design/amendments/ for new files that were not present at the start of this iteration.
2. If new amendment files are found:
   • Read each amendment file to understand the architectural change.
   • Spawn a planner agent to update affected architecture artifacts (api-contracts.md, component-map.md, schema files).
   • Commit the amendment: git add specs/design/ && git commit -m "refactor: update api-contracts for {change description}"
3. Proceed to the ratchet gate with the updated architecture.

Amendments are a signal that the implementation discovered a design gap. They must be incorporated before evaluation, not deferred.

---

SECTION 9: GAN Design Loop (Frontend Groups Only, Full Mode)

Read calibration-profile.json for all scoring and iteration parameters. Fall back to defaults if file does not exist.

Configuration

Parameter	Source	Default
Scoring weights	calibration-profile.json → scoring.weights	DQ=1.5, O=1.5, C=0.75, F=0.75
Pass threshold	calibration-profile.json → scoring.threshold	7
Per-criterion minimum	calibration-profile.json → scoring.per_criterion_minimum	5
Max iterations	calibration-profile.json → iteration.max_iterations	10
Plateau window	calibration-profile.json → iteration.plateau_window	3
Plateau delta	calibration-profile.json → iteration.plateau_delta	0.3
Pivot on plateau	calibration-profile.json → iteration.pivot_after_plateau	true

Loop

For each frontend page in the current group:

1. Screenshot — Take screenshots of the page at 1280px and 375px widths using Playwright
2. Score — Spawn design-critic agent with screenshots + calibration profile
3. Check threshold — weighted average >= threshold AND all criteria >= per_criterion_minimum
4. If PASS — Record score to specs/reviews/eval-scores.json, continue to next page
5. If FAIL — Send critique to generator, generator iterates on UI code

Plateau Detection

After each iteration, check the last plateau_window weighted scores:

• If max(recent) - min(recent) < plateau_delta: scores have plateaued
• If pivot_after_plateau is true: instruct generator to make a fundamental change (different palette, layout, or typography) — not incremental tweaks
• If false: log warning, continue with incremental critique

Termination

• Score meets threshold → PASS, move to next page
• max_iterations reached → log to failures.md, extract learned rule, escalate to user. Do NOT revert (ratchet gate already passed for functional checks).
• Lean/Solo/Turbo modes: skip this section entirely

---

SECTION 10: Session Chaining

claude-progress.txt is the memory bridge between context windows. Each iteration appends a new session block.

Format

=== Session {N} ===
date: {ISO 8601}
mode: {full|lean|solo}
groups_completed: [A, B, C]
groups_remaining: [D, E, F]
current_group: D (extraction)
current_stories: [E4-S1, E4-S2]
sprint_contract: sprint-contracts/group-D.json
last_commit: {hash} "{message}"
features_passing: 47 / 203
coverage: 82%
learned_rules: 6
blocked_stories: none
next_action: Run evaluator against group D

Rules

• Append, never overwrite. Each session block is added after the previous one. The file is an append-only log.
• Read the LAST block for recovery. When context recovery (SECTION 2) reads this file, it parses only the final session block to determine current state.
• Session number increments monotonically. Parse the last session number and add 1.
• next_action is critical. This field tells a fresh context window exactly what to do first. Be specific: "Run evaluator against group D" is good. "Continue" is not.
• Include blocked_stories if any stories failed 3 consecutive self-heal attempts. Format: [E4-S3 (import error), E5-S1 (docker fail)].

---

SECTION 11: Stopping Criteria

OR logic with priority (check in order):

1. Hard stop: An architecture violation that self-healing cannot fix, OR the total iteration count exceeds 50. Stop the entire /auto run. Report status and hand off to the user.

2. Escalate (per-story): A story fails 3 consecutive self-heal iterations. Mark it BLOCKED. Log to failures.md. Extract learned rule. Skip to the next group. Do NOT stop the entire run.

3. Coverage gate: Coverage drops below the baseline AFTER a successful commit. This overrides the pass — revert the commit (git revert HEAD --no-edit), log the regression, and re-enter self-healing for coverage.

4. Success: All features in features.json have passes: true AND coverage >= baseline threshold. Before claiming completion, invoke superpowers:verification-before-completion to run all verification commands and confirm output. Evidence before assertions. Print:

   === BUILD COMPLETE ===
   Features passing: {N}/{N}
   Coverage: {X}%
   Groups completed: [list]
   Blocked stories: [list or "none"]
   Learned rules: {count}
   Total iterations: {count}
   

   Then:

   1. Run docker compose down -v
   2. Generate README.md for the built application (see below)
   3. Commit: git add README.md && git commit -m "docs: add README with architecture, setup, and API reference"
   4. Exit

README Generation (on completion)

After the build completes, generate a README.md that describes the GENERATED APP (not the harness).

Read these files for content:

• specs/brd/brd.md — project description
• specs/design/architecture.md — system architecture
• specs/design/api-contracts.md or api-contracts.schema.json — API surface
• specs/design/component-map.md — module structure
• project-manifest.json — tech stack
• init.sh — setup steps
• docker-compose.yml (if exists) — services
• .env.example (if exists) — required environment variables

Required sections: Project description, Architecture (diagram/layers), Tech Stack (table), Prerequisites, Quick Start (copy-paste commands), API Endpoints (table), Project Structure (directory tree), Running Tests, Environment Variables (table from .env.example), Development notes.

Rules:

• Do NOT mention Claude, the harness, /auto, agents, or the GAN loop. This is a developer README for the app.
• All commands must work against the generated code.
• API table must match actual routes, not just the spec.
• Environment variables must match .env.example exactly.

---

SECTION 12: Failure-Driven Learning

Learned rules are the harness's long-term memory. They prevent the same mistake from recurring across iterations and context windows.

When to Extract a Rule

Extract a new rule when the same error type (by category from SECTION 6) appears 2 or more times in .claude/state/failures.md. Check after every failure entry.

Rule Format

Append to .claude/state/learned-rules.md:

## Rule {N}: {descriptive title}

- **Source:** Group {group}, Story {story}, Iteration {iter}
- **Impact:** {quantified damage — e.g., "test coverage dropped 18%", "deployment failed", "3 iterations wasted"}
- **Pattern:** {what went wrong — the repeated error signature}

### Mistake
{description of what happened and why it failed}

### Anti-Pattern (Avoid This)
\`\`\`{language}
{code example showing the bad pattern — actual code from the failure}
\`\`\`

### Better Approach
\`\`\`{language}
{code example showing the correct pattern — the fix that resolved it}
\`\`\`

- **Rule:** {the concrete instruction to prevent recurrence}
- **Applied in:** {list of agents/skills that must follow this rule}

Include code examples whenever the mistake involves a code pattern. For non-code mistakes (e.g., wrong deployment sequence), describe the steps instead of code blocks. Always quantify impact — agents prioritize rules with higher impact.

Injection

• Rules are injected verbatim into ALL future agent prompts: generator teammates, evaluator, design-critic, planner.
• Include the full text of every rule, not just titles or references.
• Rules are NEVER deleted. The rule set is monotonically growing — it is a ratchet on institutional knowledge.
• If learned-rules.md does not exist yet, create it with a header: # Learned Rules\n\nRules extracted from failure patterns during autonomous build.\n

---

SECTION 13: Gotchas

• Not reading program.md each iteration: Constraints can change mid-run (e.g., a human updates program.md while /auto is running). Always re-read at the start of every iteration.
• Retrying the same approach after failure: The self-healing loop must classify the failure and apply a DIFFERENT fix strategy. If attempt 1 failed with a type error fix, attempt 2 must try a different approach (e.g., restructure the function signature, not just change the annotation).
• Reverting too eagerly: Self-heal first (3 attempts). Only revert after the 3rd failure. Premature revert wastes working code.
• Reverting too broadly: git checkout -- . reverts everything. After the 3rd failure, only the current group's files should be reverted. Use the file ownership list from component-map.md to scope the revert: git checkout -- {file1} {file2} ...
• Ignoring failure log patterns: Check failures.md for recurring patterns BEFORE spawning the generator. If the same error has appeared before, inject the relevant learned rule into the generator prompt proactively.
• Autonomous drift: Every code change must trace to a story in the current group. If the generator introduces code that does not map to any acceptance criterion, reject it. No speculative features.
• No human check-in: Cap at 50 total iterations. After 50 iterations, stop and present a status report regardless of completion state. Long autonomous runs without human oversight risk compounding errors.
• Not injecting learned rules: Every agent prompt must include the full text of all learned rules. This is the most common cause of repeated failures. If you spawn an agent without learned rules, you are guaranteeing a preventable regression.