autopilot
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
Chinese<Purpose>
Autopilot takes a brief product idea and autonomously handles the full lifecycle: requirements analysis, technical design, planning, parallel implementation, QA cycling, and multi-perspective validation. It produces working, verified code from a 2-3 line description.
</Purpose>
<Use_When>
- User wants end-to-end autonomous execution from an idea to working code
- User says "autopilot", "auto pilot", "autonomous", "build me", "create me", "make me", "full auto", "handle it all", or "I want a/an..."
- Task requires multiple phases: planning, coding, testing, and validation
- User wants hands-off execution and is willing to let the system run to completion </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- User wants to explore options or brainstorm -- use skill instead
plan - User says "just explain", "draft only", or "what would you suggest" -- respond conversationally
- User wants a single focused code change -- use or delegate to an executor agent
ralph - User wants to review or critique an existing plan -- use
plan --review - Task is a quick fix or small bug -- use direct executor delegation </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Why_This_Exists>
Most non-trivial software tasks require coordinated phases: understanding requirements, designing a solution, implementing in parallel, testing, and validating quality. Autopilot orchestrates all of these phases automatically so the user can describe what they want and receive working code without managing each step.
</Why_This_Exists>
<Execution_Policy>
- Each phase must complete before the next begins
- Parallel execution is used within phases where possible (Phase 2 and Phase 4)
- QA cycles repeat up to 5 times; if the same error persists 3 times, stop and report the fundamental issue
- Validation requires approval from all reviewers; rejected items get fixed and re-validated
- Cancel with at any time; progress is preserved for resume
/cancel - If a deep-interview spec exists, use it as high-clarity phase input instead of re-expanding from scratch
- If input is too vague for reliable expansion, offer/trigger first
$deep-interview - Do not enter expansion/planning/execution-heavy phases until pre-context grounding exists; if fast execution is forced, proceed only with explicit risk notes
- Default to concise, evidence-dense progress and completion reporting unless the user or risk level requires more detail
- Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints
- If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the workflow is grounded
- Continue through clear, low-risk, reversible next steps automatically; ask only when the next step is materially branching, destructive, or preference-dependent </Execution_Policy>
-
Phase 0 - Expansion: Turn the user's idea into a detailed spec
- If exists for this task: reuse it and skip redundant expansion work
.omx/specs/deep-interview-*.md - If prompt is highly vague: route to for Socratic ambiguity-gated clarification
$deep-interview - Analyst (THOROUGH tier): Extract requirements
- Architect (THOROUGH tier): Create technical specification
- Output:
.omx/plans/autopilot-spec.md
- If
-
Phase 1 - Planning: Create an implementation plan from the spec
- Architect (THOROUGH tier): Create plan (direct mode, no interview)
- Critic (THOROUGH tier): Validate plan
- Output:
.omx/plans/autopilot-impl.md
-
Phase 2 - Execution: Implement the plan using Ralph + Ultrawork
- LOW-tier executor/search roles: Simple tasks
- STANDARD-tier executor roles: Standard tasks
- THOROUGH-tier executor/architect roles: Complex tasks
- Run independent tasks in parallel
-
Phase 3 - QA: Cycle until all tests pass (UltraQA mode)
- Build, lint, test, fix failures
- Repeat up to 5 cycles
- Stop early if the same error repeats 3 times (indicates a fundamental issue)
-
Phase 4 - Validation: Multi-perspective review in parallel
- Architect: Functional completeness
- Security-reviewer: Vulnerability check
- Code-reviewer: Quality review
- All must approve; fix and re-validate on rejection
-
Phase 5 - Cleanup: Clear all mode state via OMX MCP tools on successful completion
state_clear({mode: "autopilot"})state_clear({mode: "ralph"})state_clear({mode: "ultrawork"})state_clear({mode: "ultraqa"})- Or run for clean exit </Steps>
/cancel
<Tool_Usage>
- Before first MCP tool use, call to discover deferred MCP tools
ToolSearch("mcp") - Use with
ask_codexfor Phase 4 architecture validationagent_role: "architect" - Use with
ask_codexfor Phase 4 security reviewagent_role: "security-reviewer" - Use with
ask_codexfor Phase 4 quality reviewagent_role: "code-reviewer" - Agents form their own analysis first, then consult Codex for cross-validation
- If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools or Codex is unavailable, proceed without it -- never block on external tools </Tool_Usage>
<Purpose>
Autopilot 接收简短的产品创意,自主处理全生命周期:需求分析、技术设计、规划、并行实现、QA 迭代、多维度验证。它可以仅通过 2-3 行的描述生成可运行、经过验证的代码。
</Purpose>
<Use_When>
- 用户需要从创意到可运行代码的端到端自主执行
- 用户提到 "autopilot"、"auto pilot"、"autonomous"、"build me"、"create me"、"make me"、"full auto"、"handle it all" 或 "I want a/an..."
- 任务需要多个阶段:规划、编码、测试和验证
- 用户希望无需手动干预的执行,愿意让系统运行直到完成 </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- 用户希望探索选项或头脑风暴——请改用 技能
plan - 用户提到 "just explain"、"draft only" 或 "what would you suggest"——采用对话式回复
- 用户需要单一聚焦的代码变更——请使用 或委派给执行 Agent
ralph - 用户希望审查或评论现有计划——请使用
plan --review - 任务是快速修复或小 Bug——直接委派给执行器 </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Why_This_Exists>
大多数非琐碎的软件任务需要多阶段协调:理解需求、设计解决方案、并行实现、测试和质量验证。Autopilot 会自动编排所有这些阶段,用户只需描述需求就能获得可运行代码,无需管理每一个步骤。
</Why_This_Exists>
<Execution_Policy>
- 每个阶段必须完成后才能进入下一阶段
- 阶段内部尽可能使用并行执行(第 2 和第 4 阶段)
- QA 循环最多重复 5 次;如果同一错误持续出现 3 次,停止并报告根本问题
- 验证需要所有审核者的批准;被驳回的项需要修复后重新验证
- 随时可以使用 取消;进度会被保存以便恢复
/cancel - 如果存在 deep-interview 规格说明,将其作为高清晰度的阶段输入,无需从零重新扩展
- 如果输入过于模糊,无法可靠扩展,优先提供/触发 先
$deep-interview - 在获取前置上下文基础之前,不要进入扩展/规划/重执行阶段;如果强制要求快速执行,仅在添加明确风险提示后继续
- 默认提供简洁、高密度证据的进度和完成报告,除非用户或风险等级要求更多细节
- 最新的用户任务更新视为当前工作流分支的局部覆盖,同时保留早期无冲突的约束条件
- 如果正确性需要额外的检查、检索、执行或验证,持续使用相关工具直到工作流落地
- 自动执行清晰、低风险、可回滚的后续步骤;仅当下一个步骤存在重大分支、破坏性操作或依赖用户偏好时才进行询问 </Execution_Policy>
-
第 0 阶段 - 扩展:将用户创意转化为详细规格说明
- 如果当前任务存在 :复用该文件,跳过冗余的扩展工作
.omx/specs/deep-interview-*.md - 如果提示非常模糊:路由到 进行苏格拉底式歧义澄清
$deep-interview - 分析师(THOROUGH 层级):提取需求
- 架构师(THOROUGH 层级):创建技术规格说明
- 输出:
.omx/plans/autopilot-spec.md
- 如果当前任务存在
-
第 1 阶段 - 规划:根据规格说明生成实现计划
- 架构师(THOROUGH 层级):创建计划(直接模式,无需访谈)
- 评审员(THOROUGH 层级):验证计划
- 输出:
.omx/plans/autopilot-impl.md
-
第 2 阶段 - 执行:使用 Ralph + Ultrawork 实现计划
- LOW 层级执行器/搜索角色:处理简单任务
- STANDARD 层级执行器角色:处理标准任务
- THOROUGH 层级执行器/架构师角色:处理复杂任务
- 并行运行独立任务
-
第 3 阶段 - QA:循环迭代直到所有测试通过(UltraQA 模式)
- 构建、代码检查、测试、修复失败项
- 最多重复 5 次循环
- 如果同一错误重复 3 次则提前停止(表明存在根本问题)
-
第 4 阶段 - 验证:并行开展多维度评审
- 架构师:功能完整性检查
- 安全评审员:漏洞检查
- 代码评审员:质量评审
- 所有评审必须通过;被驳回的项需要修复后重新验证
-
第 5 阶段 - 清理:成功完成后通过 OMX MCP 工具清除所有模式状态
state_clear({mode: "autopilot"})state_clear({mode: "ralph"})state_clear({mode: "ultrawork"})state_clear({mode: "ultraqa"})- 或运行 实现干净退出 </Steps>
/cancel
<Tool_Usage>
- 首次使用 MCP 工具前,调用 发现待加载的 MCP 工具
ToolSearch("mcp") - 第 4 阶段架构验证使用 并指定
ask_codexagent_role: "architect" - 第 4 阶段安全评审使用 并指定
ask_codexagent_role: "security-reviewer" - 第 4 阶段质量评审使用 并指定
ask_codexagent_role: "code-reviewer" - Agent 先自行完成分析,再咨询 Codex 进行交叉验证
- 如果 ToolSearch 没有找到 MCP 工具或 Codex 不可用,继续执行不要阻塞在外部工具上 </Tool_Usage>
State Management
状态管理
Use MCP tools for autopilot lifecycle state.
omx_state- On start:
state_write({mode: "autopilot", active: true, current_phase: "expansion", started_at: "<now>", state: {context_snapshot_path: "<snapshot-path>"}}) - On phase transitions:
state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "planning"})state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "execution"})state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "qa"})state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "validation"}) - On completion:
state_write({mode: "autopilot", active: false, current_phase: "complete", completed_at: "<now>"}) - On cancellation/cleanup:
run (which should call
$cancel)state_clear(mode="autopilot")
使用 MCP 工具管理 Autopilot 生命周期状态。
omx_state- 启动时:
state_write({mode: "autopilot", active: true, current_phase: "expansion", started_at: "<now>", state: {context_snapshot_path: "<snapshot-path>"}}) - 阶段切换时:
state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "planning"})state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "execution"})state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "qa"})state_write({mode: "autopilot", current_phase: "validation"}) - 完成时:
state_write({mode: "autopilot", active: false, current_phase: "complete", completed_at: "<now>"}) - 取消/清理时:
运行 (会调用
$cancel)state_clear(mode="autopilot")
Scenario Examples
场景示例
Good: The user says after the workflow already has a clear next step. Continue the current branch of work instead of restarting or re-asking the same question.
continueGood: The user changes only the output shape or downstream delivery step (for example ). Preserve earlier non-conflicting workflow constraints and apply the update locally.
make a PRBad: The user says , and the workflow restarts discovery or stops before the missing verification/evidence is gathered.
<Examples>
<Good>
User: "autopilot A REST API for a bookstore inventory with CRUD operations using TypeScript"
Why good: Specific domain (bookstore), clear features (CRUD), technology constraint (TypeScript). Autopilot has enough context to expand into a full spec.
</Good>
<Good>
User: "build me a CLI tool that tracks daily habits with streak counting"
Why good: Clear product concept with a specific feature. The "build me" trigger activates autopilot.
</Good>
<Bad>
User: "fix the bug in the login page"
Why bad: This is a single focused fix, not a multi-phase project. Use direct executor delegation or ralph instead.
</Bad>
<Bad>
User: "what are some good approaches for adding caching?"
Why bad: This is an exploration/brainstorming request. Respond conversationally or use the plan skill.
</Bad>
</Examples>
continue<Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
- Stop and report when the same QA error persists across 3 cycles (fundamental issue requiring human input)
- Stop and report when validation keeps failing after 3 re-validation rounds
- Stop when the user says "stop", "cancel", or "abort"
- If requirements were too vague and expansion produces an unclear spec, pause and redirect to before proceeding </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
$deep-interview
<Final_Checklist>
- All 5 phases completed (Expansion, Planning, Execution, QA, Validation)
- All validators approved in Phase 4
- Tests pass (verified with fresh test run output)
- Build succeeds (verified with fresh build output)
- State files cleaned up
- User informed of completion with summary of what was built </Final_Checklist>
好的示例:工作流已经有明确的下一步时用户说 。继续当前分支的工作,不要重启或重复询问相同问题。
continue好的示例:用户仅修改输出形式或下游交付步骤(比如 )。保留早期无冲突的工作流约束,局部应用更新。
make a PR不好的示例:用户说 ,工作流却重启发现流程,或在缺失验证/证据时停止。
<Examples>
<Good>
用户:"autopilot A REST API for a bookstore inventory with CRUD operations using TypeScript"
为什么好:明确的领域(书店)、清晰的功能(CRUD)、技术约束(TypeScript)。Autopilot 有足够的上下文扩展为完整的规格说明。
</Good>
<Good>
用户:"build me a CLI tool that tracks daily habits with streak counting"
为什么好:清晰的产品概念和特定功能。"build me" 触发词会激活 Autopilot。
</Good>
<Bad>
用户:"fix the bug in the login page"
为什么不好:这是单一聚焦的修复,不是多阶段项目。请直接委派给执行器或使用 ralph 代替。
</Bad>
<Bad>
用户:"what are some good approaches for adding caching?"
为什么不好:这是探索/头脑风暴请求。采用对话式回复或使用 plan 技能。
</Bad>
</Examples>
continue<Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
- 同一 QA 错误在 3 次循环中持续出现时停止并报告(需要人工输入的根本问题)
- 3 次重新验证后仍然不通过时停止并报告
- 用户说 "stop"、"cancel" 或 "abort" 时停止
- 如果需求过于模糊,扩展后生成的规格说明不清晰,先暂停并重定向到 再继续 </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
$deep-interview
<Final_Checklist>
- 所有 5 个阶段已完成(扩展、规划、执行、QA、验证)
- 第 4 阶段所有验证者已批准
- 测试通过(通过最新的测试运行输出验证)
- 构建成功(通过最新的构建输出验证)
- 状态文件已清理
- 已告知用户完成状态并总结构建内容 </Final_Checklist>
Configuration
配置
Optional settings in :
~/.codex/config.tomltoml
[omx.autopilot]
maxIterations = 10
maxQaCycles = 5
maxValidationRounds = 3
pauseAfterExpansion = false
pauseAfterPlanning = false
skipQa = false
skipValidation = false~/.codex/config.tomltoml
[omx.autopilot]
maxIterations = 10
maxQaCycles = 5
maxValidationRounds = 3
pauseAfterExpansion = false
pauseAfterPlanning = false
skipQa = false
skipValidation = falseResume
恢复
If autopilot was cancelled or failed, run again to resume from where it stopped.
/autopilot如果 Autopilot 被取消或运行失败,再次运行 即可从停止位置恢复。
/autopilotRecommended Clarity Pipeline
推荐的清晰度处理流程
For ambiguous requests, prefer:
deep-interview -> ralplan -> autopilot- : ambiguity-gated Socratic requirements
deep-interview - : consensus planning (planner/architect/critic)
ralplan - : execution + QA + validation
autopilot
对于模糊的请求,优先采用:
deep-interview -> ralplan -> autopilot- :基于歧义阈值的苏格拉底式需求澄清
deep-interview - :共识规划(规划者/架构师/评审员)
ralplan - :执行 + QA + 验证
autopilot
Best Practices for Input
输入最佳实践
- Be specific about the domain -- "bookstore" not "store"
- Mention key features -- "with CRUD", "with authentication"
- Specify constraints -- "using TypeScript", "with PostgreSQL"
- Let it run -- avoid interrupting unless truly needed
- 明确领域——比如 "书店" 而不是 "商店"
- 说明核心功能——比如 "支持 CRUD"、"带身份验证"
- 指定约束条件——比如 "使用 TypeScript"、"对接 PostgreSQL"
- 让它运行——除非真的需要,否则不要中断
Pipeline Orchestrator (v0.8+)
流水线编排器(v0.8+)
Autopilot can be driven by the configurable pipeline orchestrator (), which
sequences stages through a uniform interface:
src/pipeline/PipelineStageRALPLAN (consensus planning) -> team-exec (Codex CLI workers) -> ralph-verify (architect verification)Pipeline configuration options:
toml
[omx.autopilot.pipeline]
maxRalphIterations = 10 # Ralph verification iteration ceiling
workerCount = 2 # Number of Codex CLI team workers
agentType = "executor" # Agent type for team workersThe pipeline persists state via and supports resume from the last
incomplete stage. See for the full API.
pipeline-state.jsonsrc/pipeline/orchestrator.tsAutopilot 可以由可配置的流水线编排器()驱动,通过统一的 接口编排各个阶段:
src/pipeline/PipelineStageRALPLAN (consensus planning) -> team-exec (Codex CLI workers) -> ralph-verify (architect verification)流水线配置选项:
toml
[omx.autopilot.pipeline]
maxRalphIterations = 10 # Ralph verification iteration ceiling
workerCount = 2 # Number of Codex CLI team workers
agentType = "executor" # Agent type for team workers流水线通过 持久化状态,支持从最后一个未完成阶段恢复。完整 API 请参考 。
pipeline-state.jsonsrc/pipeline/orchestrator.tsTroubleshooting
故障排查
Stuck in a phase? Check TODO list for blocked tasks, run , or cancel and resume.
state_read({mode: "autopilot"})QA cycles exhausted? The same error 3 times indicates a fundamental issue. Review the error pattern; manual intervention may be needed.
Validation keeps failing? Review the specific issues. Requirements may have been too vague -- cancel and provide more detail.
</Advanced>
卡在某个阶段? 检查待办列表中的阻塞任务,运行 ,或取消后恢复。
state_read({mode: "autopilot"})QA 循环已用尽? 同一错误出现 3 次表明存在根本问题。查看错误模式;可能需要人工介入。
验证持续失败? 查看具体问题。需求可能过于模糊——取消后提供更多细节。
</Advanced>