
Autoresearch Agent
FreeAutomate your code optimization experiments.
Free · Opens the source repo
What Autoresearch Agent does
The Autoresearch Agent is designed to automate the process of optimizing files through an autonomous experiment loop. Inspired by Andrej Karpathy's autoresearch, this skill allows users to define a target file and an evaluation command that outputs a measurable metric. The agent then makes iterative changes to the target file, evaluates the results, and retains improvements while discarding unsuccessful attempts. This process continues indefinitely, enabling users to achieve significant optimizations in code performance, content quality, or any other measurable aspect of their work.
To set up the Autoresearch Agent, users can run a setup script that allows them to specify the experiment's parameters, including the target file, evaluation command, and the metric to optimize. The skill supports various domains such as engineering, marketing, and content creation, making it versatile for different use cases. Each iteration of the experiment is meticulously logged, allowing users to track progress and learn from past attempts. The agent not only automates the tedious aspects of experimentation but also incorporates a self-improvement mechanism, reviewing results after a set number of experiments to refine strategies and enhance future iterations.
This skill is particularly beneficial for developers looking to enhance code efficiency, marketers aiming to improve engagement metrics, or content creators seeking to optimize readability and SEO. By leveraging the Autoresearch Agent, users can focus on higher-level creative tasks while the agent handles the repetitive and data-driven aspects of optimization, ultimately leading to better results in less time.
When to use it
Use this skill when you want to continuously optimize a file based on measurable metrics without manual intervention.
When not to use it
This skill may not be suitable for one-off optimizations or when immediate results are required, as it operates on an iterative basis.
What you can build with it
Optimize API Response Time
Set up an experiment to reduce the response time of an API endpoint by adjusting the code and measuring performance.
Improve Marketing Headlines
Run experiments on different headlines to find the most engaging options based on click-through rates.
Enhance Content Readability
Use the agent to refine articles by experimenting with structure and language to improve readability scores.
How to install Autoresearch Agent
View source1. Install with the skills CLI
npx skills add alirezarezvani/claude-skills/autoresearch-agent --agent claude-code2. Or install it manually
Download the skill folder and drop it into ~/.claude/skills/ for all projects, or .claude/skills/ to scope it to one repo. Restart Claude Code so it picks up the new skill.
Anthropic's agentic coding CLI, and the reference implementation of Agent Skills. Drop a skill folder into ~/.claude/skills and Claude Code loads it automatically whenever a task matches the skill's description. Claude Code docs
Inside SKILL.md
Written by alirezarezvaniAutoresearch Agent
You sleep. The agent experiments. You wake up to results.
Autonomous experiment loop inspired by Karpathy's autoresearch. The agent edits one file, runs a fixed evaluation, keeps improvements, discards failures, and loops indefinitely.
Not one guess — fifty measured attempts, compounding.
Slash Commands
| Command | What it does |
|---|---|
/ar:setup | Set up a new experiment interactively |
/ar:run | Run a single experiment iteration |
/ar:loop | Start autonomous loop with configurable interval (10m, 1h, daily, weekly, monthly) |
/ar:status | Show dashboard and results |
/ar:resume | Resume a paused experiment |
When This Skill Activates
Recognize these patterns from the user:
- "Make this faster / smaller / better"
- "Optimize [file] for [metric]"
- "Improve my [headlines / copy / prompts]"
- "Run experiments overnight"
- "I want to get [metric] from X to Y"
- Any request involving: optimize, benchmark, improve, experiment loop, autoresearch
If the user describes a target file + a way to measure success → this skill applies.
Setup
First Time — Create the Experiment
Run the setup script. The user decides where experiments live:
Project-level (inside repo, git-tracked, shareable with team):
python scripts/setup_experiment.py \
--domain engineering \
--name api-speed \
--target src/api/search.py \
--eval "pytest bench.py --tb=no -q" \
--metric p50_ms \
--direction lower \
--scope project
User-level (personal, in ~/.autoresearch/):
python scripts/setup_experiment.py \
--domain marketing \
--name medium-ctr \
--target content/titles.md \
--eval "python evaluate.py" \
--metric ctr_score \
--direction higher \
--evaluator llm_judge_content \
--scope user
The --scope flag determines where .autoresearch/ lives:
project(default) →.autoresearch/in the repo root. Experiment definitions are git-tracked. Results are gitignored.user→~/.autoresearch/in the home directory. Everything is personal.
What Setup Creates
.autoresearch/
├── config.yaml ← Global settings
├── .gitignore ← Ignores results.tsv, *.log
└── {domain}/{experiment-name}/
├── program.md ← Objectives, constraints, strategy
├── config.cfg ← Target, eval cmd, metric, direction
├── results.tsv ← Experiment log (gitignored)
└── evaluate.py ← Evaluation script (if --evaluator used)
results.tsv columns: commit | metric | status | description
commit— short git hashmetric— float value or "N/A" for crashesstatus— keep | discard | crashdescription— what changed or why it crashed
Domains
| Domain | Use Cases |
|---|---|
engineering | Code speed, memory, bundle size, test pass rate, build time |
marketing | Headlines, social copy, email subjects, ad copy, engagement |
content | Article structure, SEO descriptions, readability, CTR |
prompts | System prompts, chatbot tone, agent instructions |
custom | Anything else with a measurable metric |
If program.md Already Exists
The user may have written their own program.md. If found in the experiment directory, read it. It overrides the template. Only ask for what's missing.
Agent Protocol
You are the loop. The scripts handle setup and evaluation — you handle the creative work.
Before Starting
- Read
.autoresearch/{domain}/{name}/config.cfgto get:target— the file you editevaluate_cmd— the command that measures your changesmetric— the metric name to look for in eval outputmetric_direction— "lower" or "higher" is bettertime_budget_minutes— max time per evaluation
- Read
program.mdfor strategy, constraints, and what you can/cannot change - Read
results.tsvfor experiment history (columns: commit, metric, status, description) - Checkout the experiment branch:
git checkout autoresearch/{domain}/{name}
Each Iteration
- Review results.tsv — what worked? What failed? What hasn't been tried?
- Decide ONE change to the target file. One variable per experiment.
- Edit the target file
- Commit:
git add {target} && git commit -m "experiment: {description}" - Evaluate:
python scripts/run_experiment.py --experiment {domain}/{name} --single - Read the output — it prints KEEP, DISCARD, or CRASH with the metric value
- Go to step 1
What the Script Handles (you don't)
- Running the eval command with timeout
- Parsing the metric from eval output
- Comparing to previous best
- Reverting the commit on failure (
git reset --hard HEAD~1) - Logging the result to results.tsv
Starting an Experiment
# Single iteration (the agent calls this repeatedly)
python scripts/run_experiment.py --experiment engineering/api-speed --single
# Dry run (test setup before starting)
python scripts/run_experiment.py --experiment engineering/api-speed --dry-run
Strategy Escalation
- Runs 1-5: Low-hanging fruit (obvious improvements, simple optimizations)
- Runs 6-15: Systematic exploration (vary one parameter at a time)
- Runs 16-30: Structural changes (algorithm swaps, architecture shifts)
- Runs 30+: Radical experiments (completely different approaches)
- If no improvement in 20+ runs: update program.md Strategy section
Self-Improvement
After every 10 experiments, review results.tsv for patterns. Update the Strategy section of program.md with what you learned (e.g., "caching changes consistently improve by 5-10%", "refactoring attempts never improve the metric"). Future iterations benefit from this accumulated knowledge.
Stopping
- Run until interrupted by the user, context limit reached, or goal in program.md is met
- Before stopping: ensure results.tsv is up to date
- On context limit: the next session can resume — results.tsv and git log persist
Rules
- One change per experiment. Don't change 5 things at once. You won't know what worked.
- Simplicity criterion. A small improvement that adds ugly complexity is not worth it. Equal performance with simpler code is a win. Removing code that gets same results is the best outcome.
- Never modify the evaluator.
evaluate.pyis the ground truth. Modifying it invalidates all comparisons. Hard stop if you catch yourself doing this. - Timeout. If a run exceeds 2.5× the time budget, kill it and treat as crash.
- Crash handling. If it's a typo or missing import, fix and re-run. If the idea is fundamentally broken, revert, log "crash", move on. 5 consecutive crashes → pause and alert.
- No new dependencies. Only use what's already available in the project.
Evaluators
Ready-to-use evaluation scripts. Copied into the experiment directory during setup with --evaluator.
Free Evaluators (no API cost)
| Evaluator | Metric | Use Case |
|---|---|---|
benchmark_speed | p50_ms (lower) | Function/API execution time |
benchmark_size | size_bytes (lower) | File, bundle, Docker image size |
test_pass_rate | pass_rate (higher) | Test suite pass percentage |
build_speed | build_seconds (lower) | Build/compile/Docker build time |
memory_usage | peak_mb (lower) | Peak memory during execution |
LLM Judge Evaluators (uses your subscription)
| Evaluator | Metric | Use Case |
|---|---|---|
llm_judge_content | ctr_score 0-10 (higher) | Headlines, titles, descriptions |
llm_judge_prompt | quality_score 0-100 (higher) | System prompts, agent instructions |
llm_judge_copy | engagement_score 0-10 (higher) | Social posts, ad copy, emails |
LLM judges call the CLI tool the user is already running (Claude, Codex, Gemini). The evaluation prompt is locked inside evaluate.py — the agent cannot modify it. This prevents the agent from gaming its own evaluator.
The user's existing subscription covers the cost:
- Claude Code Max → unlimited Claude calls for evaluation
- Codex CLI (ChatGPT Pro) → unlimited Codex calls
- Gemini CLI (free tier) → free evaluation calls
Custom Evaluators
If no built-in evaluator fits, the user writes their own evaluate.py. Only requirement: it must print metric_name: value to stdout.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# My custom evaluator — DO NOT MODIFY after experiment starts
import subprocess
result = subprocess.run(["my-benchmark", "--json"], capture_output=True, text=True)
# Parse and output
print(f"my_metric: {parse_score(result.stdout)}")
Viewing Results
# Single experiment
python scripts/log_results.py --experiment engineering/api-speed
# All experiments in a domain
python scripts/log_results.py --domain engineering
# Cross-experiment dashboard
python scripts/log_results.py --dashboard
# Export formats
python scripts/log_results.py --experiment engineering/api-speed --format csv --output results.csv
python scripts/log_results.py --experiment engineering/api-speed --format markdown --output results.md
python scripts/log_results.py --dashboard --format markdown --output dashboard.md
Dashboard Output
DOMAIN EXPERIMENT RUNS KEPT BEST Δ FROM START STATUS
engineering api-speed 47 14 185ms -76.9% active
engineering bundle-size 23 8 412KB -58.3% paused
marketing medium-ctr 31 11 8.4/10 +68.0% active
prompts support-tone 15 6 82/100 +46.4% done
Export Formats
- TSV — default, tab-separated (compatible with spreadsheets)
- CSV — comma-separated, with proper quoting
- Markdown — formatted table, readable in GitHub/docs
Proactive Triggers
Flag these without being asked:
- No evaluation command works → Test it before starting the loop. Run once, verify output.
- Target file not in git →
git init && git add . && git commit -m 'initial'first. - Metric direction unclear → Ask: is lower or higher better? Must know before starting.
- Time budget too short → If eval takes longer than budget, every run crashes.
- Agent modifying evaluate.py → Hard stop. This invalidates all comparisons.
- 5 consecutive crashes → Pause the loop. Alert the user. Don't keep burning cycles.
- No improvement in 20+ runs → Suggest changing strategy in program.md or trying a different approach.
Installation
One-liner (any tool)
git clone https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git
cp -r claude-skills/engineering/autoresearch-agent ~/.claude/skills/
Multi-tool install
./scripts/convert.sh --skill autoresearch-agent --tool codex|gemini|cursor|windsurf|openclaw
OpenClaw
clawhub install cs-autoresearch-agent
Related Skills
- self-improving-agent — improves an agent's own memory/rules over time. NOT for structured experiment loops.
- senior-ml-engineer — ML architecture decisions. Complementary — use for initial design, then autoresearch for optimization.
- tdd-guide — test-driven development. Complementary — tests can be the evaluation function.
- skill-security-auditor — audit skills before publishing. NOT for optimization loops.
Frequently asked questions about Autoresearch Agent
Similar skills
Heap Snapshot Analysis
Investigate V8 heap snapshots for memory issues.
VS Code Performance Workflow
Automate performance investigations in VS Code.
Memory Leak Audit
Prevent memory leaks with effective coding patterns.
CPU Profile Analysis
Analyze V8 and Chrome performance profiles for optimization.
Chat Performance Testing
Benchmark and validate chat UI performance in VS Code.
Vercel React Best Practices
Optimize your React and Next.js applications for performance.
