Atlas / Skills / wanshuiyin / Auto Review Loop

Auto Review LoopSAFE

skills/wanshuiyin/auto-review-loop

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.

Verdict
SAFE
Grade
B
Trust score
89 /100
Version
—
Hosts
3 documented
License
MIT
Stars
18,057
01

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.

Read from source at commit 65f365162a55OBSERVED · 2026-10-25
Advertisement
02

Host compatibility

What the documentation claims. We have not run a compatibility test.

HostStatusNotes
claude-codementioned
codexmentioned
copilotmentioned
03

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
description: Autonomous multi-round research review loop. In Copilot CLI it defaults to the native complementary rubber-duck subagent with host-event model evidence; elsewhere it uses Codex, while explicit external reviewer overrides remain available. Implements fixes and re-reviews until a policy-approved positive assessment or max rounds is reached.
argument-hint: "[topic-or-scope]"
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, Skill, Task, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply, mcp__manual_review__review, mcp__manual_review__review_reply, mcp__antigravity__antigravity, mcp__antigravity__antigravity-reply, mcp__grok__grok, mcp__grok__grok-reply, mcp__claude-review__review, mcp__claude-review__review_reply, mcp__claude-review__review_start, mcp__claude-review__review_reply_start, mcp__claude-review__review_status
---

# Auto Review Loop: Autonomous Research Improvement

> 🔒 **Do not wrap this skill in `/loop`, `/schedule`, or `CronCreate`.** It
> already loops internally (review → fix → re-review) and the reviewer carries
> round-to-round memory in one `threadId` (`codex-reply`). An external timer
> re-enters from the top each tick — fresh `threadId`, reviewer memory reset —
> firing the verdict on wall-clock time instead of on artifact change: zero new
> signal, full token cost. If you want to schedule something, schedule the
> *external wait that precedes it* (experiments done → then run this once). See
> [`shared-references/external-cadence.md`](../shared-references/external-cadence.md).

Autonomously iterate: review → implement fixes → re-review, until an independent reviewer gives a policy-approved 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. This matches the operative Phase-E STOP CONDITION exactly; the verdict vocabulary is {"ready", "almost", "not ready"} (a high score with a "not ready" verdict does NOT stop the loop). Earlier wording here used `or` and a stale verdict set ("accept"/"sufficient"/"ready for submission") — that was an internal inconsistency; 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 = `gpt-6-astra` — Default model for the Codex backend. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g., `gpt-6-astra`, `gpt-6.1-sol`). Manual backend uses a model the user chooses — it must be a recognized model from a different family (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, Moonshot/Kimi, Qwen).
- **REVIEWER_BACKEND** — With no inline or project backend selection, start as `auto`; Step -1 runs exactly one two-call native marker/challenge probe for the first review. A bound Copilot CLI root session uses `copilot-native` (built-in complementary `rubber-duck` subagent); an unbound/non-Copilot host keeps the existing `codex` default. Inline or project selection of `codex`, `antigravity`/`gemini`, `grok`, `claude-code`, `oracle-pro`, `agy`, or `manual` bypasses the probe. Explicit `— reviewer: copilot` retains the compatibility `copilot --agent` drive mode and its later Codex/manual finalizer. The native path gets both actual model IDs from host session events; it never needs `COPILOT_CLI` or caller-provided `--executor-model`. See `shared-references/reviewer-routing.md`.
- **OUTPUT_DIR = `review-stage/`** — All review-stage outputs go here. Create the directory if it doesn't exist.
- **HUMAN_CHECKPOINT = false** — When `true`, pause after each round's review (Phase B) and present the score + weaknesses to the user. Wait for user input before proceeding to Phase C. The user can: approve the suggested fixes, provide custom modification instructions, skip specific fixes, or stop the loop early. When `false` (default), the loop runs fully autonomously.
- **COMPACT = false** — When `true`, (1) read `EXPERIMENT_LOG.md` and `findings.md` instead of parsing full logs on session recovery, (2) append key findings to `findings.md` after each round.
- **REVIEWER_DIFFICULTY = medium** — Controls how adversarial the reviewer is. Three levels:
  - `medium` (default): Current behavior — MCP-based review, the executor controls what context the reviewer sees.
  - `hard`: Adds **Reviewer Memory** (the reviewer tracks its own suspicions across rounds) + **Debate Protocol** (the executor can rebut, the reviewer rules).
  - `nightmare`: Everything in `hard` + **The selected reviewer reads the repo directly** (`codex exec` on the Codex route) (the executor cannot filter what the reviewer sees) + **Adversarial Verification** (the reviewer independently checks if code matches claims).
- **RENDER_HTML = true** — When `true` (default), auto-render `review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md` to HTML on loop termination via `/render-html`. Uses `--no-review` (the loop itself IS the cross-model review; the HTML is a structural conversion). Set `false` to skip, or pass `— render html: false`.

> ⚠️ **Nightmare + Manual incompatibility**: If `REVIEWER_BACKEND = manual` and `REVIEWER_DIFFICULTY = nightmare`, STOP with:
> "difficulty: nightmare requires direct repository access and is not compatible with --reviewer: manual. Use difficulty: hard, or select a file-reading reviewer."

> 💡 Override: `/auto-review-loop "topic" — compact: true, human checkpoint: true, difficulty: hard`

## Reviewer Calling Convention

Resolve reviewer selection before any review: invocation `— reviewer:` →
project `.aris/reviewer.json` → host default. Use `reviewer_route.py` with
`--host claude-code --tier regular` (or actual Copilot host), resolved per
`integration-contract.md` §2, and [reviewer-backends.md](../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md).
Only the absence of both inline and project backend selection enters the
automatic host protocol below. Invalid configuration is `REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE`.
After the host default is determined, resolve any project model/
04

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.

LayerWhat it checksResult
L0Provenance & inventoryPASS
L1Static analysis of the codeNA
L2Instruction surface (what it tells the agent)PASS
L3Class-specific surfacePASS
L4Behavioural (sandbox)SKIPPED

What the source does

Filesystem
none-observed
Network
none-observed
Shell
none-observed
Dependencies
pinned
Secrets in source
none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.

Audited 2026-10-25 · audit v0.4.1 · source sha 65f365162a55full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/wanshuiyin__auto-review-loop.json · Report an issue / request a re-scan
05

Audit history

Every audit this skill has had.

DateSourceVerdictGradeScoreChange
2026-10-2565f365162a55SAFEB89first audit
06

Questions

What does the auto-review-loop — 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 — 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 — 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 — wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep work with?

Its documentation mentions claude-code, codex and copilot. 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 2026-10-25. 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.

ModelsAtlas audit badge

Markdown
[![ModelsAtlas audit: Auto Review Loop](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-review-loop/badge.svg)](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-review-loop/)

Not your listing, or something out of date? Claim or update your listing.

Advertisement