Auto Review Loop MinimaxSAFE
ARIS ⚔️ (Auto-Research-In-Sleep) — Lightweight Markdown-only skills for autonomous ML research: cross-model review loops, idea discovery, and experiment automation. No framework, no lock-in — works with Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, or any LLM agent.
Overview
ARIS ⚔️ (Auto-Research-In-Sleep) — Lightweight Markdown-only skills for autonomous ML research: cross-model review loops, idea discovery, and experiment automation. No framework, no lock-in — works with Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, or any LLM agent.
65f365162a55OBSERVED · 2026-10-27Host compatibility
What the documentation claims. We have not run a compatibility test.
| Host | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| codex | mentioned |
What it tells the agent
The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.
---
name: auto-review-loop-minimax
description: Autonomous multi-round research review loop using MiniMax API. Use when you want to use MiniMax instead of Codex MCP for external review. Trigger with "auto review loop minimax" or "minimax review".
argument-hint: "[topic-or-scope]"
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, Skill
---
# Auto Review Loop (MiniMax Version): Autonomous Research Improvement
> 🔒 **Do not wrap this skill in `/loop`, `/schedule`, or `CronCreate`.** Like
> `/auto-review-loop`, it already loops internally (review → fix → re-review),
> feeding each round's prior-round summary into the next review prompt (the
> backend is a stateless per-round API call, not a shared thread). An external
> timer re-enters from the top each tick, dropping that accumulated context and
> firing the verdict on wall-clock time instead of on artifact change — zero
> new signal, full token cost. Schedule the *external wait that precedes it*,
> not the verdict. See
> [`shared-references/external-cadence.md`](../shared-references/external-cadence.md).
Autonomously iterate: review → implement fixes → re-review, until the external reviewer gives a positive assessment or MAX_ROUNDS is reached.
## Context: $ARGUMENTS
## Constants
- MAX_ROUNDS = 4
- POSITIVE_THRESHOLD: score >= 6/10 **AND** verdict ∈ {"ready", "almost"} — **both** must hold, matching the operative STOP CONDITION below. Verdict vocabulary is {"ready", "almost", "not ready"}. (Earlier wording used `or` and a stale verdict set; the `AND` form is authoritative.)
- REVIEW_DOC: `review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md` (cumulative log) *(fall back to `./AUTO_REVIEW.md` for legacy projects)*
- REVIEWER_MODEL = `MiniMax-M3` — Model used via MiniMax API
## API Configuration
This skill uses MiniMax API for external review. Two methods are supported:
### Method 1: MCP Tool (Primary)
If `mcp__minimax-chat__minimax_chat` is available, use it:
```
mcp__minimax-chat__minimax_chat:
prompt: |
[Review prompt content]
model: "MiniMax-M3"
system: "You are a senior machine learning researcher..."
```
### Method 2: curl (Fallback)
If MCP is not available, use curl directly:
```bash
curl -s "https://api.minimax.io/v1/chat/completions" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $MINIMAX_API_KEY" \
-d '{
"model": "MiniMax-M3",
"messages": [
{"role": "system", "content": "You are a senior ML researcher..."},
{"role": "user", "content": "[Review prompt]"}
],
"max_tokens": 4096
}'
```
**API Key**: Read from `~/.claude/settings.json` under `env.MINIMAX_API_KEY`, or from environment variable.
**Why MiniMax instead of Codex MCP?** Codex CLI uses OpenAI's Responses API (`/v1/responses`) which is not supported by third-party providers. See: https://github.com/openai/codex/discussions/7782
## State Persistence (Compact Recovery)
Long-running loops may hit the context window limit, triggering automatic compaction. To survive this, persist state to `review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json` after each round:
```json
{
"round": 2,
"status": "in_progress",
"last_score": 5.0,
"last_verdict": "not ready",
"pending_experiments": ["screen_name_1"],
"timestamp": "2026-03-13T21:00:00"
}
```
**Write this file at the end of every Phase E** (after documenting the round). Overwrite each time — only the latest state matters.
**On completion** (positive assessment or max rounds), set `"status": "completed"` so future invocations don't accidentally resume a finished loop.
## Workflow
### Initialization
1. **Check for `review-stage/REVIEW_STATE.json`** *(fall back to `./REVIEW_STATE.json` if not found — legacy path)*:
- If neither path exists: **fresh start** (normal case)
- If it exists AND `status` is `"completed"`: **fresh start** (previous loop finished normally)
- If it exists AND `status` is `"in_progress"` AND `timestamp` is older than 24 hours: **fresh start** (stale state from a killed/abandoned run — delete the file and start over)
- If it exists AND `status` is `"in_progress"` AND `timestamp` is within 24 hours: **resume**
- Read the state file to recover `round`, `last_score`, `pending_experiments`
- Read `review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md` to restore full context of prior rounds *(fall back to `./AUTO_REVIEW.md`)*
- If `pending_experiments` is non-empty, check if they have completed (e.g., check screen sessions)
- Resume from the next round (round = saved round + 1)
- Log: "Recovered from context compaction. Resuming at Round N."
2. Read project narrative documents, memory files, and any prior review documents
3. Read recent experiment results (check output directories, logs)
4. Identify current weaknesses and open TODOs from prior reviews
5. Initialize round counter = 1 (unless recovered from state file)
6. Create/update `review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md` with header and timestamp
### Loop (repeat up to MAX_ROUNDS)
#### Phase A: Review
Send comprehensive context to the external reviewer.
**Check MCP availability first**, then use appropriate method:
**If MCP available (Primary):**
```
Use mcp__minimax-chat__minimax_chat tool with:
- system: "You are a senior machine learning researcher serving as a reviewer for top-tier conferences like NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR. Provide rigorous, constructive feedback."
- prompt: [Full review prompt with context]
- model: "MiniMax-M3"
```
**If MCP NOT available (Fallback):**
```bash
curl -s "https://api.minimax.io/v1/chat/completions" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $MINIMAX_API_KEY" \
-d '{
"model": "MiniMax-M3",
"messages": [
{
"role": "system",
"content": "You are a senior machine learning researcher serving as a reviewer for top-tier conferences like NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR. Provide rigorous, constructive feedback."
},
{
"role": "user",
"content": "[Round N/MAX_ROUNDS of autonomous review loop]\n\n[Full research Trust audit
SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.
| Layer | What it checks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Provenance & inventory | PASS |
| L1 | Static analysis of the code | NA |
| L2 | Instruction surface (what it tells the agent) | PASS |
| L3 | Class-specific surface | PASS |
| L4 | Behavioural (sandbox) | SKIPPED |
What the source does
- Filesystem
- none-observed
- Network
- none-observed
- Shell
- none-observed
- Dependencies
- pinned
- Secrets in source
- none-found
Findings (6)
Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.
system: "You are a senior machine learning researcher..."
{"role": "system", "content": "You are a senior ML researcher..."},- system: "You are a senior machine learning researcher serving as a reviewer for top-tier conferences like NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR. Provide rigorous, constructive feedback."
"content": "You are a senior machine learning researcher serving as a reviewer for top-tier conferences like NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR. Provide rigorous, constructive feedback."
system: "You are a senior machine learning researcher serving as a reviewer for top-tier conferences like NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR. Provide rigorous, constructive feedback."
Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.
65f365162a55full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/wanshuiyin__auto-review-loop-minimax.json · Report an issue / request a re-scanAudit history
Every audit this skill has had.
| Date | Source | Verdict | Grade | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-27 | 65f365162a55 | SAFE | B | 89 | first audit |
Questions
What does the auto-review-loop-minimax — wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep skill do?
ARIS ⚔️ (Auto-Research-In-Sleep) — Lightweight Markdown-only skills for autonomous ML research: cross-model review loops, idea discovery, and experiment automation. No framework, no lock-in — works with Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, or any LLM agent.
Is auto-review-loop-minimax — wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep safe to install?
The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.
What can auto-review-loop-minimax — wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep access on my machine?
The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.
Which assistants does auto-review-loop-minimax — wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep work with?
Its documentation mentions codex. That is what the text claims, not a compatibility test we ran.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (65f365162a55), read on 2026-10-27. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.
Add this badge to your README
Shows this page's audit result and links back to it. It updates when the audit does.
[](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-review-loop-minimax/)
Not your listing, or something out of date? Claim or update your listing.