neekware/artifacts/bundle/skills/engineering/autoresearch-agent

Autoresearch Agent

You sleep. The agent experiments. You wake up to results.

Autonomous experiment loop inspired by Karpathy's autoresearch. The agent edits one file, runs a fixed evaluation, keeps improvements, discards failures, and loops indefinitely.

Not one guess — fifty measured attempts, compounding.

---

Slash Commands

| Command | What it does | | ------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | /ar:setup | Set up a new experiment interactively | | /ar:run | Run a single experiment iteration | | /ar:loop | Start autonomous loop with configurable interval (10m, 1h, daily, weekly, monthly) | | /ar:status | Show dashboard and results | | /ar:resume | Resume a paused experiment |

---

When This Skill Activates

Recognize these patterns from the user:

• "Make this faster / smaller / better"
• "Optimize [file] for [metric]"
• "Improve my [headlines / copy / prompts]"
• "Run experiments overnight"
• "I want to get [metric] from X to Y"
• Any request involving: optimize, benchmark, improve, experiment loop, autoresearch

If the user describes a target file + a way to measure success → this skill applies.

---

Setup

First Time — Create the Experiment

Run the setup script. The user decides where experiments live:

Project-level (inside repo, git-tracked, shareable with team):

python scripts/setup_experiment.py \
  --domain engineering \
  --name api-speed \
  --target src/api/search.py \
  --eval "pytest bench.py --tb=no -q" \
  --metric p50_ms \
  --direction lower \
  --scope project

User-level (personal, in ~/.autoresearch/):

python scripts/setup_experiment.py \
  --domain marketing \
  --name medium-ctr \
  --target content/titles.md \
  --eval "python evaluate.py" \
  --metric ctr_score \
  --direction higher \
  --evaluator llm_judge_content \
  --scope user

The --scope flag determines where .autoresearch/ lives:

• project (default) → .autoresearch/ in the repo root. Experiment definitions are git-tracked. Results are gitignored.
• user → ~/.autoresearch/ in the home directory. Everything is personal.

What Setup Creates

.autoresearch/
├── config.yaml                        ← Global settings
├── .gitignore                         ← Ignores results.tsv, *.log
└── {domain}/{experiment-name}/
    ├── program.md                     ← Objectives, constraints, strategy
    ├── config.cfg                     ← Target, eval cmd, metric, direction
    ├── results.tsv                    ← Experiment log (gitignored)
    └── evaluate.py                    ← Evaluation script (if --evaluator used)

results.tsv columns: commit | metric | status | description

• commit — short git hash
• metric — float value or "N/A" for crashes
• status — keep | discard | crash
• description — what changed or why it crashed

Domains

| Domain | Use Cases | | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | engineering | Code speed, memory, bundle size, test pass rate, build time | | marketing | Headlines, social copy, email subjects, ad copy, engagement | | content | Article structure, SEO descriptions, readability, CTR | | prompts | System prompts, chatbot tone, agent instructions | | custom | Anything else with a measurable metric |

If program.md Already Exists

The user may have written their own program.md. If found in the experiment directory, read it. It overrides the template. Only ask for what's missing.

---

Agent Protocol

You are the loop. The scripts handle setup and evaluation — you handle the creative work.

Before Starting

1. Read .autoresearch/{domain}/{name}/config.cfg to get:
   • target — the file you edit
   • evaluate_cmd — the command that measures your changes
   • metric — the metric name to look for in eval output
   • metric_direction — "lower" or "higher" is better
   • time_budget_minutes — max time per evaluation
2. Read program.md for strategy, constraints, and what you can/cannot change
3. Read results.tsv for experiment history (columns: commit, metric, status, description)
4. Checkout the experiment branch: git checkout autoresearch/{domain}/{name}

Each Iteration

1. Review results.tsv — what worked? What failed? What hasn't been tried?
2. Decide ONE change to the target file. One variable per experiment.
3. Edit the target file
4. Commit: git add {target} && git commit -m "experiment: {description}"
5. Evaluate: python scripts/run_experiment.py --experiment {domain}/{name} --single
6. Read the output — it prints KEEP, DISCARD, or CRASH with the metric value
7. Go to step 1

What the Script Handles (you don't)

• Running the eval command with timeout
• Parsing the metric from eval output
• Comparing to previous best
• Reverting the commit on failure (git reset --hard HEAD~1)
• Logging the result to results.tsv

Starting an Experiment

# Single iteration (the agent calls this repeatedly)
python scripts/run_experiment.py --experiment engineering/api-speed --single

# Dry run (test setup before starting)
python scripts/run_experiment.py --experiment engineering/api-speed --dry-run

Strategy Escalation

• Runs 1-5: Low-hanging fruit (obvious improvements, simple optimizations)
• Runs 6-15: Systematic exploration (vary one parameter at a time)
• Runs 16-30: Structural changes (algorithm swaps, architecture shifts)
• Runs 30+: Radical experiments (completely different approaches)
• If no improvement in 20+ runs: update program.md Strategy section

Self-Improvement

After every 10 experiments, review results.tsv for patterns. Update the Strategy section of program.md with what you learned (e.g., "caching changes consistently improve by 5-10%", "refactoring attempts never improve the metric"). Future iterations benefit from this accumulated knowledge.

Stopping

• Run until interrupted by the user, context limit reached, or goal in program.md is met
• Before stopping: ensure results.tsv is up to date
• On context limit: the next session can resume — results.tsv and git log persist

Rules

• One change per experiment. Don't change 5 things at once. You won't know what worked.
• Simplicity criterion. A small improvement that adds ugly complexity is not worth it. Equal performance with simpler code is a win. Removing code that gets same results is the best outcome.
• Never modify the evaluator. evaluate.py is the ground truth. Modifying it invalidates all comparisons. Hard stop if you catch yourself doing this.
• Timeout. If a run exceeds 2.5× the time budget, kill it and treat as crash.
• Crash handling. If it's a typo or missing import, fix and re-run. If the idea is fundamentally broken, revert, log "crash", move on. 5 consecutive crashes → pause and alert.
• No new dependencies. Only use what's already available in the project.

---

Evaluators

Ready-to-use evaluation scripts. Copied into the experiment directory during setup with --evaluator.

Free Evaluators (no API cost)

| Evaluator | Metric | Use Case | | ----------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------------- | | benchmark_speed | p50_ms (lower) | Function/API execution time | | benchmark_size | size_bytes (lower) | File, bundle, Docker image size | | test_pass_rate | pass_rate (higher) | Test suite pass percentage | | build_speed | build_seconds (lower) | Build/compile/Docker build time | | memory_usage | peak_mb (lower) | Peak memory during execution |

LLM Judge Evaluators (uses your subscription)

| Evaluator | Metric | Use Case | | ------------------- | -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | | llm_judge_content | ctr_score 0-10 (higher) | Headlines, titles, descriptions | | llm_judge_prompt | quality_score 0-100 (higher) | System prompts, agent instructions | | llm_judge_copy | engagement_score 0-10 (higher) | Social posts, ad copy, emails |

LLM judges call the CLI tool the user is already running (Claude, Codex, Gemini). The evaluation prompt is locked inside evaluate.py — the agent cannot modify it. This prevents the agent from gaming its own evaluator.

The user's existing subscription covers the cost:

• Claude Code Max → unlimited Claude calls for evaluation
• Codex CLI (ChatGPT Pro) → unlimited Codex calls
• Gemini CLI (free tier) → free evaluation calls

Custom Evaluators

If no built-in evaluator fits, the user writes their own evaluate.py. Only requirement: it must print metric_name: value to stdout.

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# My custom evaluator — DO NOT MODIFY after experiment starts
import subprocess
result = subprocess.run(["my-benchmark", "--json"], capture_output=True, text=True)
# Parse and output
print(f"my_metric: {parse_score(result.stdout)}")

---

Viewing Results

# Single experiment
python scripts/log_results.py --experiment engineering/api-speed

# All experiments in a domain
python scripts/log_results.py --domain engineering

# Cross-experiment dashboard
python scripts/log_results.py --dashboard

# Export formats
python scripts/log_results.py --experiment engineering/api-speed --format csv --output results.csv
python scripts/log_results.py --experiment engineering/api-speed --format markdown --output results.md
python scripts/log_results.py --dashboard --format markdown --output dashboard.md

Dashboard Output

DOMAIN          EXPERIMENT          RUNS  KEPT  BEST         Δ FROM START  STATUS
engineering     api-speed            47    14   185ms        -76.9%        active
engineering     bundle-size          23     8   412KB        -58.3%        paused
marketing       medium-ctr           31    11   8.4/10       +68.0%        active
prompts         support-tone         15     6   82/100       +46.4%        done

Export Formats

• TSV — default, tab-separated (compatible with spreadsheets)
• CSV — comma-separated, with proper quoting
• Markdown — formatted table, readable in GitHub/docs

---

Proactive Triggers

Flag these without being asked:

• No evaluation command works → Test it before starting the loop. Run once, verify output.
• Target file not in git → git init && git add . && git commit -m 'initial' first.
• Metric direction unclear → Ask: is lower or higher better? Must know before starting.
• Time budget too short → If eval takes longer than budget, every run crashes.
• Agent modifying evaluate.py → Hard stop. This invalidates all comparisons.
• 5 consecutive crashes → Pause the loop. Alert the user. Don't keep burning cycles.
• No improvement in 20+ runs → Suggest changing strategy in program.md or trying a different approach.

---

Installation

One-liner (any tool)

git clone https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git
cp -r claude-skills/engineering/autoresearch-agent ~/.claude/skills/

Multi-tool install

./scripts/convert.sh --skill autoresearch-agent --tool codex|gemini|cursor|windsurf|openclaw

OpenClaw

clawhub install cs-autoresearch-agent

---

Related Skills

• self-improving-agent — improves an agent's own memory/rules over time. NOT for structured experiment loops.
• senior-ml-engineer — ML architecture decisions. Complementary — use for initial design, then autoresearch for optimization.
• tdd-guide — test-driven development. Complementary — tests can be the evaluation function.
• skill-security-auditor — audit skills before publishing. NOT for optimization loops.

Creator: Alireza Rezvani License: MIT Source Repo: neekware/ehaye-skills Source Bucket: engineering Original Path: engineering/autoresearch-agent