ARIS is a collection of Markdown-based skills that define a workflow for autonomous machine-learning research, including idea discovery, experiment automation, and review loops. Researchers and AI coding agents use it across tools such as Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and OpenClaw without depending on a single framework. The catalogue entries are ARIS workflow skills and agents.
Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleepnpx agentmods add skills/wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loopWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loop/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loop.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket warn
- Snyk fail
- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 3 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Excessive Agency · line 486 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
- high Excessive Agency · line 780 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 962 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00065 | $0.16890 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.08445 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.03378 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.01689 |
Grade A, and why
auto-review-loop scanned grade A with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 4d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
- **Anti-hallucination citations**: When adding references during fixes, NEVER fabricate BibTeX. Use the same DBLP → CrossRef → `[VERIFY]` chain as `/paper-write`: (1) `curl -s "https://dblp.org/search/publ/api?q=TITLE&f How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 1,138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Auto Review Loop: Autonomous Research Improvement
🔒 Do not wrap this skill in
/loop,/schedule, orCronCreate. It already loops internally (review → fix → re-review) and the reviewer carries round-to-round memory in onethreadId(codex-reply). An external timer re-enters from the top each tick — freshthreadId, 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). Seeshared-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
orand a stale verdict set ("accept"/"sufficient"/"ready for submission") — that was an internal inconsistency; theANDform is authoritative. - REVIEW_DOC:
review-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.md(cumulative log) (fall back to./AUTO_REVIEW.mdfor legacy projects) - REVIEWER_MODEL =
gpt-6-astra— Default model for the Codex backend. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g.,gpt-6-astra,o3,gpt-4o). 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 reviewer directive, start as
auto; Step -1 runs exactly one two-call native marker/challenge probe for the first review. A bound Copilot CLI root session usescopilot-native(built-in complementaryrubber-ducksubagent); an unbound/non-Copilot host keeps the existingcodexdefault. Explicit— reviewer: codex,oracle-pro,agy, ormanualbypasses the probe and selects that external backend. Explicit— reviewer: copilotretains the compatibilitycopilot --agentdrive mode and its later Codex/manual finalizer. The native path gets both actual model IDs from host session events; it never needsCOPILOT_CLIor caller-provided--executor-model. Seeshared-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. Whenfalse(default), the loop runs fully autonomously. - COMPACT = false — When
true, (1) readEXPERIMENT_LOG.mdandfindings.mdinstead of parsing full logs on session recovery, (2) append key findings tofindings.mdafter 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 inhard+ Codex exec reviewer reads the repo directly viacodex exec(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-renderreview-stage/AUTO_REVIEW.mdto HTML on loop termination via/render-html. Uses--no-review(the loop itself IS the cross-model review; the HTML is a structural conversion). Setfalseto skip, or pass— render html: false.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 4d ago Changed 5ffe1d2ae9a7
- 11d ago First seen · 1,138 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 9a0fcdb23d89
auto-review-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep (15,970 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 16,890 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Perform structured code reviews with actionable feedback. Use when a user asks to review code, check code quality, find bugs, audit security, improve performance, or assess maintainability. Trigger when user says things like "review this code", "check for bugs", "is this code secure", "any issues with this", "code…
codex
Multi-AI adversarial fallback chain — three tiers: Codex CLI (primary), OpenCode/GLM5 (fallback), Claude subagent (last resort). Three modes: review (code review with pass/fail gate), challenge (adversarial — tries to break your code), consult (ask anything with session continuity). Use when asked to "codex review"…
code-review
Performs structured code review on a file or directory.
chimera-list-exemptions-not-obligations
A gate that lists what to check fails open — the site nobody remembered to add is the one that breaks. List the exemptions instead, each with a written reason, and the default becomes fail.
chimera-state-what-you-did-not-check
A ranking built from part of the system reads as a ranking of the system — write the scope and the exclusions next to the findings, not after them.
punch
Punch list — completeness and residue check before delivery. Finds what's missing that should exist (omission) and what's left behind that shouldn't (refactor residue). Reconstructs intent, overlays domain checklist, scans for stale references.