---
name: automate-me
description: "Use for \"automate me\", \"create/update/refresh my -mode skill\", \"turn/capture my preferences or working style into a skill\", or wanting agents to follow how the user works. Drafts or revises a personal -mode skill via skill-creator + unslop, optionally pulling fresh evidence from recent transcripts."
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Automate me

Read [Codex execution](../poteto-mode/references/codex-execution.md) for installed paths, model settings, and subagent calls.

A guided flow for turning the user's working conventions into a skill agents will follow. The output is one `-mode` skill tailored to them (e.g. `jay-mode`, `priya-mode`).

This skill orchestrates three others: an inline mining pass (see step 1), Codex's `skill-creator` (authoring), and the **unslop** skill (prose discipline). It sequences them. It doesn't replace them.

## Flow

### 0. Check for an existing skill

Look recursively for `.agents/skills/**/*-mode/SKILL.md` and `$CODEX_HOME/skills/*-mode/SKILL.md` (`~/.codex/skills` when unset) matching the user's handle. Mode skills can live in a personal category directory (`.agents/skills/<handle>/`), not only at the top level. If one exists, confirm intent with `request_user_input` when the current host exposes it, otherwise ask the same choice in chat and wait (unless they already said "update my skill" or similar):

- Update the existing skill (default for repeat runs)
- Start fresh (rare, ask why before doing it)

Update mode changes the rest of the flow:
- Step 1 mines only history since the skill was last edited (`git log -1 --format=%cI <path>`).
- Step 2 asks what's changed or missing, not what to capture from zero.
- Step 4 edits the existing file in place. Preserve sections the user hasn't contradicted. Revise ones with new evidence. Add new sections only for genuinely new rules.

### 1. Mine their history

Use the [project history lookup](../recall/SKILL.md) before fanning out. Resolve `../recall/scripts/codex-history.mjs` from this skill directory and list only the active project in the requested window. Its Codex query includes inherited prefixes and reads the same current conversation returned by list. Include known existing Claude runner directories with repeatable `--claude-runs "<absolute-run-root>"` arguments; locate them from task artifacts and existing project `.local/` runs. Only supplied roots and matching project/worktree cwd metadata are searched. Pass each miner the scoped Codex UUIDs and exact Claude receipt paths, executor, run roots, and helper read command. For Claude, read the exact receipt with `--source claude-code --receipt "<result.json>"` and the same project/run roots, then open the returned prompt and stdout paths for attempts, failures, and tool evidence; consult request and stderr when relevant. A result summary alone is insufficient. Preserve distinct receipt paths for resumed runs sharing one session UUID, and cite that identity with each pattern.

Survey recent agent conversations within that scope for recurring patterns. Resolve the existing `swarm workers` role through the setup helper per **Codex execution**, then run multiple parallel subagents with `agent_type: "pstack-general-purpose"` across slices of history (e.g. last 2-4 weeks, split into 3 slices so each has enough material). Pick each subagent's reasoning level and fast or standard speed for the job, per the Subagents section of the **poteto-mode** skill. Each slice mining subagent reads the project-scoped conversations and raw runner evidence the parent supplies, looks for the signals below, and returns a short structured list of patterns it saw with evidence pointers. Default signals worth hunting:

- Response preferences (length, tone, format, "dumb it down" corrections)
- Delegation habits (subagents, models, specialized workflows, parallelism)
- Verification posture (what "done" means, unit tests vs live repro, reviewers)
- Code and prose discipline (style, principles cited, lint/format tools)
- Process conventions (worktrees, commits, PRs, review/merge tooling)
- Meta preferences (fixing skills mid-task, proposing new ones)

Cross-check across slices before elevating a signal. Patterns seen in 2+ slices are high-confidence. Lone signals are weak and usually get dropped.

### 2. Ask the user directly

Mining misses intent that hasn't come up yet. Use the available `request_user_input` tool for a short structured interview. If this host exposes it only in Plan mode, conduct the same interview in chat.

Shape: one or two focused questions with the tool-supported number of mutually exclusive choices. For categories that need multiple selections, collect them in a follow-up chat answer. Start broad ("Which areas matter most?"), then follow up on selected areas with specific options. After the structured rounds, one free-form chat question catches anything the options missed.

Don't dump 20 questions.

### 3. Cluster findings

Group the combined signals into sections. Common ones (use only what applies):

- **Response style**: length, tone, format.
- **Autonomy**: how much to do without asking, MCP tool use.
- **Understand first**: which skills to reach for when scoping or investigating a change.
- **Subagents**: default, parallelism, model-to-task, specialized workflows.
- **Prose / code discipline**: principles, lint tools, style guides.
- **Review and verify**: repro posture, verification skills, live-testing tools.
- **Process**: git worktrees, commits, PRs, review/merge tooling.
- **Skills**: skill-authoring habits, fix-the-skill-first, proposing new skills.

The **poteto-mode** skill shows the shape. Read it for granularity. Don't copy its content. The user's rules are not the same as poteto-mode's.

### 4. Draft the skill

Use Codex's `skill-creator` skill to author the skill. Placement:

- Path: preserve an existing mode skill's category. For a new mode, use `.agents/skills/<handle>/<handle>-mode/SKILL.md` when the repo has an established personal category for that handle. Otherwise default to `.agents/skills/<handle>-mode/SKILL.md` in the project (or `$CODEX_HOME/skills/<handle>-mode/` if the user prefers a personal skill).
- Handle: the user's first name or chosen identifier.
- Frontmatter `description`: trigger on their name + `/<handle>-mode` + "work in their style", not on generic keywords like "write code" or "review PR".
- Frontmatter formatting: follow `skill-creator`'s YAML rules. Keep `description` as one YAML scalar. Quote it or use `description: >-` with indented continuation lines when punctuation or wrapping requires it.
- Preserve the explicit-only default in `agents/openai.yaml` with `policy.allow_implicit_invocation: false`. Opt out only if the user explicitly wants their mode to apply on every turn. Codex frontmatter contains `name` and `description`; this invocation policy belongs in the companion metadata file.

### 5. Iterate on prose

Apply the **unslop** skill and `skill-creator`'s writing guidelines to every line.

Show the draft to the user and take feedback. Expect multiple iterations. Cut ruthlessly. A mode skill is not a manual.

### 6. Land it

Work in a worktree off main. Commit and open a PR. Don't push to main directly.

## Guardrails

- **Don't overfit to one conversation.** A preference stated once and contradicted another time is noise. Require multiple instances before codifying it.
- **Don't be clever.** Restating other skills' contents, inventing metaphors, or writing "poetic" prose for an agent reader is cost without benefit. Keep it operational.
- **Reference, don't inline.** Other skills the user relies on should appear as path references, not pasted excerpts. Same for any principle docs they maintain elsewhere.
- **Keep sections minimal.** Only add a section if the user has a specific, non-default rule there. "Communicate clearly" is not a section. "Short paragraphs. Tables when comparing options. Bullets only when items are genuinely parallel." is.
- **Name conventions generic.** Use "the user" or "the human" in imperatives, not the author's first name.
- **Don't force symmetry.** If a user has no process rules worth writing down, skip the Process section entirely.

## Evaluation

A `-mode` skill is subjective output. A `skill-creator`-style test/iterate benchmark loop isn't useful here. Vibe-check with the user: does it read like them? Did it miss anything? Then ship.

Run a description-optimization loop only if the skill's trigger accuracy turns out to be a problem in practice.

## When not to use

- User wants a task-specific skill (not working conventions): `skill-creator` alone, no mining required.
- User wants to capture one narrow workflow (e.g. "how I write commit messages"). That's a regular skill, not a mode skill.