bundles/ai-agents/skills/ultracode/SKILL.md
Runs a Codex-only high-autonomy workflow for difficult coding tasks: inspect, plan, choose direct/workflow/delegated mode, use bounded subagents for independent packets, integrate in the parent thread, verify, and continue until done or genuinely blocked. Use when invoked with $ultracode, /ultracode, "ultracode", "maximum-depth", "split across agents", "parallel agents", "deep autonomous implementation", broad repo analysis, migrations, refactors, hard debugging, QA, or end-to-end shipping.
npx skillsauth add shipshitdev/library ultracodeInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Run a disciplined Codex workflow for serious coding tasks. This skill is not a
hidden runtime, background service, or Claude UltraCode toggle. Codex capability
comes from the active model, model_reasoning_effort, /goal, and available
subagent tools. This skill supplies the operating policy.
Inputs:
Outputs:
Creates/Modifies:
External Side Effects:
Confirmation Required:
Delegates To:
multi-agent-patterns when topology or packet boundaries are uncleartest-runner for test execution and failure fixingqa-reviewer for final independent verificationRestate the concrete goal in one sentence. Inspect the repo before deciding. Find at least three similar examples before adding new code, unless the task is genuinely novel or the repo lacks comparable patterns.
Classify the task before acting:
Then choose one mode.
Use for small, clear work that does not benefit from packetization.
Examples:
Behavior:
Use for multi-step work when native subagents are unavailable, not useful, or not allowed.
Examples:
Behavior:
plan.md,
integration.md, final-report.md, or a repo-approved scratch location.Use when Codex exposes subagent tools, the task has independent packets, and delegation is allowed by the user request and host policy.
Strong delegation signals include:
$ultracode, /ultracode, or "ultracode" on a non-trivial coding taskBehavior:
Every delegated prompt must be self-contained and include scope, constraints, expected output, and whether the agent may edit files.
For read-only agents, require:
Inspect only the scoped sources unless one nearby hop is required.
Do not edit files.
Cite file paths and line numbers where possible.
Return: summary, evidence, risks, recommended parent action.
For write-capable agents, require:
You are not alone in the codebase. Do not revert edits made by others.
Edit only the owned files or modules unless blocked.
Do not commit, push, publish, deploy, or run broad formatting over unrelated files.
Return: files changed, summary, verification run, risks or blockers.
Use a lightweight eval contract for high-risk work or any change crossing public interfaces, schemas, auth, permissions, data migrations, CLI behavior, UI flows, or shared integration surfaces.
Eval contract:
- Outcome:
- Shared surfaces:
- Required checks:
- Blocking conditions:
- Handoff evidence:
Keep the contract current as work changes. Use it to reject subagent outputs that do not provide evidence, conflict with source truth, or leave shared surfaces unverified.
/goal supplies persistence and completion criteria. $ultracode supplies the
orchestration policy. Use them together for long-running work:
/goal Use $ultracode.
Objective:
<one durable outcome>
Constraints:
<what not to change>
Context:
<files/docs/issues/logs to inspect first>
Done when:
<tests/checks/artifacts that prove completion>
Work style:
Plan first, use subagents for parallel read-heavy exploration/review/testing,
implement directly, verify after each checkpoint, fix failures, and continue
until done or genuinely blocked.
Recommended Codex config for this mode:
model = "<current Codex model>" # verify the latest; do not pin a stale version
model_reasoning_effort = "xhigh"
plan_mode_reasoning_effort = "xhigh"
[features]
goals = true
multi_agent = true
If these settings are unavailable, continue with the strongest available model and tools, and state the limitation only when it affects the result.
Verify at the narrowest useful scope first:
Fix failures and rerun the relevant checks. If a check cannot run, state the exact reason and what remains unverified.
/goal complete without evidence that the completion criteria passed.Keep the final response short:
development
Coordinates a weekly engineering review of board accuracy, recent code changes, operational health, and scoped cleanup. Use for a recurring repository health review or a review of the last several days.
testing
Audits project board configuration and prepares explicitly requested setup, copy, or normalization changes while preserving the existing workflow and provider boundaries. Use when inspecting a board's fields, columns, scope, or configuration.
testing
Reconciles a project board with current work and delivery evidence, reports incomplete coverage and metadata gaps, and applies only approved provider-supported field changes. Use when auditing board drift, reviewing blocked work, or assessing upcoming delivery.
development
Walk through how a subsystem works. Use for "how does X work", code walkthroughs before changing something, and placement or ownership questions. Explains architecture, runtime flow, and onboarding mental models. Can critique architecture. Use why for motivation.