auto-review-loop

auto-review-loop is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep. It costs 65 tokens per session (16,890 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An automated research review cycle that asks an independent reviewer to assess work, applies fixes, and repeats the review.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to improve research projects through several review-and-fix rounds. It can use the built-in reviewer or an explicitly chosen external reviewer.
Why use it?
It reduces repeated manual checking while keeping the review and correction process together. The cycle ends after a positive assessment or four rounds.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for Claude Code and Codex: allowed-tools in frontmatter, but also runs codex exec. Also seen: reads .claude/ paths; mentions subagents; positional $N argument.

Needs its repository: it reads a path above its own folder, which exists only inside the repository. The line is [`shared-references/external-cadence.md`](../shared-references/external-cadence.md)..

Good fit Use it to improve research projects through several review-and-fix rounds. It can use the built-in reviewer or an explicitly chosen external reviewer.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
About the project

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.

wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep · 15,970 stars · on GitHub

Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loop

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for auto-review-loop

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loop/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/auto-review-loop)
Your own site
<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.

agentmods 80×15 button for auto-review-loop

Your own site · 80×15
<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>
Per session 65 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 16,890 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 1 finding. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • Socket warn 17 May 2026
  • Snyk fail 17 May 2026
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector warn 7 Sept 2026
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.
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce 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

Measured 4d ago against content hash 5ffe1d2ae9a7, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-11, from the pricing page.

Security

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
skills/auto-review-loop/SKILL.md · 1,138 lines

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, 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.

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, 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 uses copilot-native (built-in complementary rubber-duck subagent); an unbound/non-Copilot host keeps the existing codex default. Explicit — reviewer: codex, oracle-pro, agy, or manual bypasses the probe and selects that external backend. 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 + Codex exec reviewer reads the repo directly via codex 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-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.

Read the full file on GitHub · 1,138 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 4d ago Changed 5ffe1d2ae9a7
  2. 11d ago First seen · 1,138 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 9a0fcdb23d89

Subscribe to this mod's changes

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.

Related

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…

Upsonic/Upsonic · 114 tokens

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"…

WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI · 101 tokens

code-review

Performs structured code review on a file or directory.

Alex8791-cyber/cognithor · 13 tokens

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.

brcampidelli/chimera-agent · 50 tokens

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.

brcampidelli/chimera-agent · 42 tokens

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.

jun0-ds/sonmat · 48 tokens