bighardperson/computer-science-skills-collection/autoresearch

Claude Code and agent skill by bighardperson/computer-science-skills-collection

Trust tier 2
  • community
LLM review pending
Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

Run Karpathy-style autoresearch optimization on any content. Generates 50+ variants, scores with a 5-expert simulated panel, evolves winners through multiple rounds, outputs optimized version + full experiment log. Use when optimizing landing pages, email sequences, ad copy, headlines, form pages, CTA text, or any conversion-focused content. Triggers on "optimize this page", "run autoresearch", "score these variants", "A/B test this copy".

Install

npx vskill@latest install bighardperson/computer-science-skills-collection/autoresearch

SKILL.md

Autoresearch Skill

Karpathy-style optimization loops for any conversion-focused content. No traffic needed. Simulated expert panel. Minutes, not weeks.

When to use this: Pre-launch content optimization. Generate 50+ variants, score with 5 simulated experts, evolve winners, output the best version + full experiment log.

When NOT to use this: Post-launch real-traffic A/B testing — that requires real analytics, not simulated scoring.

The sequence: Run autoresearch FIRST to hit 85+ simulated score. Then deploy. Then validate with real traffic.

What You'll Produce

Every run outputs 3 files:

FilePurpose
{name}-optimized.{ext}The winning optimized content
data/{name}-experiments.jsonFull experiment log — all variants + all scores
data/{name}-optimization-report.mdHuman-readable summary with winner rationale

Expert Panel (5 Personas)

Score every variant against all 5. Batch all variants into a single API call per round.

#PersonaScoring Lens
1CMO at a mid-market B2B company (50M+ revenue)"Would this make me stop and engage?"
2Skeptical founder"Do I believe this? Would I trust this company?"
3Conversion rate optimizer"Is this clear, specific, and action-driving?"
4Senior copywriter"Is this compelling, differentiated, and well-crafted?"
5Your CEO/founder"Direct, ROI-obsessed, no BS. Would I put this on my site?"
Customization: Replace persona #5 with your own CEO/founder voice. Define their priorities and communication style in a references/founder-voice.md file.

Each judge scores 0–100. Final score = average across all 5 judges.


Round Structure (Per Content Element)

Round 1:
→ Generate 10 variants of the element
→ Batch-score all 10 with the 5-expert panel (1 API call)
→ Rank by average score
→ Keep top 3
Round 2 (Evolution):
→ Analyze what the top 3 did right
→ Generate 10 new variants that push those winning patterns further
→ Batch-score all 10 (1 API call)
→ Keep top 3
Round 3 (If score < threshold):
→ Identify weakest scoring dimension
→ Generate 10 variants optimized for that dimension
→ Batch-score → keep top 1
Multi-element cross-breeding:
→ Take top 1 winner from each element
→ Generate 5 combinations that mix winning elements
→ Score holistically as complete units
→ Output the single best combination

Stop condition: Top variant hits minimum score threshold (default: 80) OR 3 rounds complete.


Content Types & Score Dimensions

Landing Pages

Elements to optimize: Hero headline, subheadline, CTA text, problem section, social proof

Score dimensions:

  • first_impression — Does it grab immediately?
  • clarity — Is the offer instantly understood?
  • trust — Does it feel credible?
  • urgency — Is there a reason to act now?
  • would_convert — Would the judge actually click?
Email Sequences

Elements to optimize: Subject line, opening line, body copy, CTA, PS line

Score dimensions:

  • would_open — Subject line pass rate
  • would_read — Does the opening hook?
  • would_click — Is the CTA compelling?
  • would_reply — Does it feel personal enough to respond to?
  • spam_risk — Does it feel spammy? (lower = better; invert for final score)
Ad Copy

Elements to optimize: Headline, description, CTA

Score dimensions:

  • scroll_stopping — Does it interrupt the scroll?
  • clarity — Is the value prop clear in 3 seconds?
  • click_worthiness — Does the judge want to click?
  • relevance — Does it match likely audience intent?
  • differentiation — Does it stand out from competitors?
Form Pages

Elements to optimize: Headline, subtext, value prop bullets, button text, field order, thank-you copy

Score dimensions:

  • first_impression — Does it feel worth filling out?
  • trust — Do they believe their info is safe and the offer is real?
  • completion_likelihood — Would the judge start filling it out?
  • lead_quality — Would this attract serious prospects (not tire-kickers)?
  • would_fill_out — Final gut check: would they submit?

Step-by-Step Execution Protocol

Step 1: Intake & Parse

Read the source content. Identify content type automatically or confirm with user:

  • HTML file → landing page or form page
  • Markdown / plain text → email or ad copy
  • If ambiguous, ask: "Is this a landing page, email sequence, ad copy, or form page?"

Extract all optimizable elements. List them back to user:

Found 5 elements to optimize:
1. Hero headline: "We help B2B companies grow"
2. Subheadline: "Full-service digital marketing..."
3. CTA: "Get Started"
4. Problem statement: [excerpt]
5. Social proof: [excerpt]
Optimizing: all | Variants per round: 10 | Min score: 80
Step 2: Get API Key

Check for Anthropic API key: $ANTHROPIC_API_KEY environment variable.

bash
export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY="your-api-key-here"
Step 3: Run Optimization Rounds

For each element, run the round structure above.

Critical API efficiency rule: ALWAYS batch all variants into a single prompt. Never call the API once per variant. A round with 10 variants = 1 API call.

Model preference (in order):

  1. claude-sonnet-4-5 (preferred — fast + smart)
  2. claude-opus-4 (if highest quality needed)
  3. Any claude-3.5+ model if the above aren't available
Step 4: Cross-Breed (Multi-Element)

After all elements have winners:

  1. Assemble the top winner from each element into a complete unit
  2. Generate 5 holistic variants that naturally combine the winning elements
  3. Score the complete units (not just individual parts)
  4. Pick the winner with the highest holistic score
Step 5: Write Output Files
bash
# Create output directory
mkdir -p data
# Write optimized content
# Write experiments JSON
# Write optimization report

Experiments JSON structure:

json
{
"run_id": "autoresearch-{name}-{timestamp}",
"content_type": "landing_page",
"source_file": "path/to/original",
"min_score_threshold": 80,
"rounds": [
{
"round": 1,
"element": "hero_headline",
"variants": [
{
"id": 1,
"text": "...",
"scores": {
"cmo": 72,
"skeptical_founder": 68,
"cro": 75,
"copywriter": 70,
"founder": 65
},
"avg_score": 70
}
],
"top_3": [1, 4, 7],
"winner_score": 82
}
],
"final_winner": {
"hero_headline": "...",
"subheadline": "...",
"cta": "...",
"holistic_score": 87
}
}
Step 6: Report Back

Summarize results to user:

  • Final winning score
  • Biggest score jump (which element improved most)
  • Top 2 runner-up alternatives (in case winner doesn't feel right)
  • Path to all 3 output files
  • Clear next step

User Options

OptionDefaultDescription
elementsallWhich elements to optimize
variants_per_round10How many variants to generate per round
min_score80Stop when this score is hit
rounds3Max rounds before stopping
auto_applyfalseWhether to overwrite the source file with winners
content_typeauto-detectForce a content type if auto-detect is wrong

Quality Gates

  • < 70: Don't ship. Something fundamental is broken.
  • 70-79: Marginal. One more round targeting the lowest-scoring dimension.
  • 80-84: Good. Shippable. Validate with real traffic.
  • 85-89: Strong. Ship with confidence.
  • 90+: Rare. Ship immediately.

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

  • Never call the API once per variant. Always batch. A 10-variant round = 1 call.
  • Don't over-optimize for one dimension. If you're hitting 95 on clarity but 45 on trust, the overall score is misleading.
  • Don't run more than 5 rounds. If you're not hitting 80 after 3 rounds, the problem is strategic (wrong positioning), not tactical (wrong words).
  • Don't cross-breed until each element has its own winner. Premature cross-breeding creates incoherent combinations.

Security

  • Security scanPassed, 100 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
  • Model reviewNot runA model review is scheduled for the next rescan.

Quality evaluation

  • Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

Source

Popularity

Repository stars
56
Repository forks
10
7-day trend score
20

Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Not refreshed yet.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • GitHub Copilot
  • Windsurf
  • Codex
  • Gemini CLI
  • Cline
  • Amp
  • Roo Code
  • Goose
  • Continue
  • Kilo Code
  • Junie
  • Trae
  • OpenHands
  • Qwen Code
  • AI Agent
  • Tabnine Chat
  • Sourcegraph Cody
  • Amazon Q
  • Firebase Genkit
  • Sweep
  • Devin
  • Phind
  • Mentat
  • Claude Desktop
  • Aider
  • GPT Pilot
  • Plandex
  • bolt.new
  • v0
  • Replit Agent
  • Anse
  • TypingMind
  • BetterChatGPT
  • LibreChat
  • Warp AI
  • Pieces
  • Fig AI
Embed badge
vskill VERIFIED badge
[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/bighardperson/computer-science-skills-collection/autoresearch/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/bighardperson/computer-science-skills-collection/autoresearch)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.