autoproduct 0.33.1

AI product autopilot: a full-lifecycle multi-agent system that finds opportunities, writes PRDs, builds, launches, and measures — with typed claims and human gates

autoproduct — AI product autopilot

Finds what to build from your real signals. Sizes it honestly. Writes the PRD. Builds, tests, and reviews the product. Measures whether it worked — and forces the kill decision when it didn't.

A week of real product signals in — an evidence-gated product decision out:

signals.yaml — support tickets + GitHub issues, verbatim:

  s1  "I started a build and stared at the terminal for 40 minutes with
       no idea whether it was progressing or stuck"
  s3  "show live build progress per task in studio — right now it looks
       frozen while it works"
  s4  "can I send a preview of the built product to my cofounder, a link
       she can open on her phone"
  s6  "how much will a typical month of builds cost me? I'm scared to
       leave autopilot running"

    ↓  autoproduct opportunity signals.yaml → market → prd → (build) → evidence

• ✅ 4 grounded candidates (Gate PL0) — every claim cites its ticket verbatim; each carries a falsifiable hypothesis and a named cheapest test ("ship a clickable mockup to the 3 reporters", not "build an MVP")
• ✅ A market assessment its own voters attack — the Sizing seat caught an ungrounded 0.15 affected-fraction inference; the Competitive seat caught "no competitor does this" resting on a single pricing-page probe; the dedicated Disconfirmation seat argues the other side on the same evidence
• ✅ A PRD with teeth (Gate PL2) — three kill criteria authored before anyone is attached, the sibling candidates explicitly listed as non-goals, and a Planning task auto-generated for the metric nobody had instrumented yet
• ✅ A machine-checked handoff into the build pipeline — Discovery reads exactly the PRD that passed the gate, or nothing
• ✅ An honest verdict (Gate PL4) — panel-open rate read at 24.0% (n=250, CI 19.1–29.7%) against a 30% kill threshold → insufficient_evidence: the interval brushes the line, so the system says "here's the n it would take to know" instead of declaring victory

(Every artifact above is unedited output from one real-provider run — see A real run below.)

Two loops, one system. The inner loop builds: apps, web services, and 微信小程序 from a single plain-language requirements doc (the FDR) — written by someone with no coding background, in their own words, English or Chinese. The outer loop decides: it mines your owned signals for opportunities, sizes markets bottom-up with mandatory sensitivity ranges, writes PRDs with required kill criteria, measures real cohorts through a privacy boundary, and routes every irreversible act — publishing, spending, shipping, killing — to a named human at a recorded gate.

Pick your door (one spine, three editions)

uvx autoproduct replay --demo    # 2 minutes, NO API key: a real review's audit
                                 # trail, replayed offline — decide with evidence
autoproduct init myco --profile web --edition solo         # or: enterprise | engineer

Editions are narrowing presets over the same unchanged pipeline — never forks, never fewer checks (edition_lint refuses anything that widens):

• Solo / OPC 一人公司 — built around your attention: one product bet, a 45-minute weekly review with the kill criteria first, safe publishing defaults.
• Enterprise / traditional industry — ships the procurement pack and the pilot-to-production contract; init refuses without a named gate owner.
• Engineer — fixture-gated extension points; nothing unfixtured registers, and you're invited to try to break that.

For founders (no technical background needed)

autoproduct studio myshop --profile miniprogram    # browser UI: the whole flow

or the same flow in the terminal:

autoproduct create myshop --profile miniprogram    # 1. writes FDR.md template + guide
# ← fill in FDR.md in your own words (Chinese or English)
autoproduct create myshop --profile miniprogram    # 2. asks questions OR confirms the plan
autoproduct create myshop --profile miniprogram --yes   # 3. builds everything
autoproduct preview                                # 4. try your product
autoproduct add feature.md --yes                   # 5. one small FDR per new feature
autoproduct ship                                   # 6. deploy artifacts + plain-language guide

• If your FDR is unclear, the system asks — it never guesses (at most 5 questions a non-technical person can answer, in your language).
• One FDR = one thing. The first FDR is the smallest usable product; every later feature is its own small FDR via add. Granular builds are more accurate and fail more debuggably.
• You confirm intent in plain language before anything is built, and get a build report in your language after — including every automated approval the machine made on your behalf.
• Real persistence out of the box: a local SQLite database is provisioned automatically; cloud services (Supabase, 微信云开发) are a guided option with credentials in a vault that never enters prompts.
• Profiles carry domain rules: 小程序 (2MB package budget, domain whitelist, lazy 授权 with 隐私协议, WeChat review boundaries), web (CSRF/SSRF, a11y, E2E flows), app (store rules, offline behavior).

For product decisions (the outer loop)

autoproduct opportunity signals.yaml         # P0: cluster real signals → candidates, Gate PL0
autoproduct market cand-x --evidence probes.yaml   # P1: bottom-up sizing, six voters incl. Disconfirmation
autoproduct market-approve --outcome pursue --scope-tier thin --decider you   # Gate PL1 (human)
autoproduct prd                              # P2: PRD with kill criteria, planning tasks generated
autoproduct prd-approve --decider you        # Gate PL2 + machine-checked handoff into the build
autoproduct evidence events.yaml --metric build_progress_view_rate --cohort-start 2026-07-10

The rules that make it trustworthy are structural, not aspirational: every quantitative claim is typed and machine-linted (claim_lint — unsourced numbers, causal-language-without-a-holdout, and missing falsifiers fail the gate); agents may never author a user quote or persona; sizing is a range, never a point; person-level data cannot leave the analytics boundary (the query errors); experiments are hash-pinned before exposure; the framework never publishes, sends, or spends autonomously; and a fired kill criterion cannot be closed without a recorded human decision.

What happens under the hood

Fourteen gated stages across two loops (design docs: autoproduct-design): Every doc is cross-referenced to its shipped mechanism in the implementation map — open items are named, never silent.

Outer loop (weeks-to-months): Opportunity sensing (deterministic clustering of owned signals, kill-registry memory) → Market & viability (standing-checked probes, injection_scan over snapshots, a red-team Disconfirmation voter) → PRD (kill criteria required at authoring time) → … → Product evidence (cohort reads through a k-anonymity boundary, attribution typed at the tool boundary) → Portfolio (mechanical kill-criteria evaluation, append-only kill registry).

Inner loop, upstream: Discovery (evidence-tagged hypotheses — fabricating user evidence is a schema violation) → Planning (task DAG with cycle/lane/budget checks) → Spec (EARS criteria machine-linted, every criterion covered by a test skeleton, frozen behind SCRs) → Coding (single-writer, test-first, AST-checked no-test-weakening, sandboxed suite must pass).

Inner loop, downstream: Code Review (6 heterogeneous voters, deterministic probes for secrets/CSRF-SSRF/slopsquatting/wireup drift, every finding independently verified) → Test Gate (isolated worktree, mutation testing in deep mode) → Deploy Review → Maintenance (triage → root cause → fix-PRs whose regression tests must fail pre-fix).

Every generative stage runs the same template: one writer, deterministic tools first, independent charter voters (each fixture-gated at 8 cases, ≥87.5% to register), a fresh verify pass per finding, a leader synthesis, and a gate — human wherever judgment is the point. Nothing auto-merges, nothing deploys autonomously, nothing publishes, nothing spends.

A real run (unedited)

Everything below is real-model output from one end-to-end run of the opportunity chain (opportunity → market → prd → evidence) on the signals shown at the top of this page. Signal texts and competitor-probe pages are fixtures; every judgment, artifact, and number below was produced by the pipeline, unedited.

1. P0 turns four signals into grounded candidates (Gate PL0 passed):

cand-build-progress — Users cannot tell whether an in-progress build is advancing or stuck, so they need live per-task progress visibility.

• hypothesis: live per-task progress stops long builds reading as frozen
• falsifier: a prototype does not reduce "is it stuck?" reports
• cheapest test: ship a clickable mockup to the 3 ticket reporters and count how many confirm it resolves their "frozen" uncertainty

2. P1's own voters attack the market case (three verified majors):

"…the revenue sizing hinges on an ungrounded 0.15 affected-fraction inference multiplied against the real 900-workspace base, the price-headroom positioning rests on only two vendors, and the Vendor B absence claim relies on a single pricing-page probe rather than a proper probe list."

The deterministic gate had already blocked an earlier draft outright: 75% of its claims were model_inference against the 30% market ceiling — reasoning dressed as research doesn't pass.

3. P2 writes a PRD with its own death spelled out (Gate PL2):

• kill: "fewer than 3 of 3 mockup reporters confirm it resolves their 'frozen' uncertainty"
• kill: "build_progress_view_rate stays below 30% after 30 days"
• non-goals: the sibling candidates, by name (shareable previews, cost visibility, dark mode)
• generated Planning task: instrument build_progress_panel_viewed so O-1 is measurable before launch

4. P4 reads the cohort and refuses to flatter it (Gate PL4):

build_progress_view_rate: 0.240   n=250   CI [0.191, 0.297]   window complete
verdict H-1: insufficient_evidence — the interval brushes the 30% kill
threshold; the honest output is the n it would take to know, not a win.

The same machinery runs the other direction too: the inner loop's product benchmark (product-bench) builds full products from plain-language FDRs (English or Chinese) and scores them with independent behavioral probes, reported unaveraged — including the runs that fail.

Measured

• Review benchmark (autoproduct bench): recall 100%, precision 67% on 13 labeled cases (bars: 40%/50%).
• Product benchmark (autoproduct product-bench): full FDR→product runs scored by independent behavioral probes executed against the built product (WebGen-Bench pattern) — build rate, probe pass rate, and clean-review rate reported unaveraged, with an honesty case proving probes can fail.
• 732 hermetic tests (uv run pytest); every PR in this repo was reviewed by autoproduct itself, and five of those reviews caught real bugs. The first live smoke of the outer loop surfaced three wiring bugs — each caught by a gate doing its job, each now a regression test.

For developers

opportunity · market / market-approve · prd / prd-approve · evidence	the outer loop as one-command stages: writer → det tools → charter voters → verify → leader → gate; human decisions recorded at PL1/PL2
voter-gate <stage>	register voters against their 8-fixture gates (≥87.5%); failed voters stop voting
claim-lint · prd-lint · handoff-check	outer-loop gates standalone: claim ledgers, PRD boundary/kill-criteria/instrumentation, the machine-checked P2→Stage-1 handoff
preregister · experiment-check	pin an experiment design before exposure; schema + FDR plan + power + pin integrity
discover / plan / spec / build (+ *-approve)	inner-loop upstream stages, gates U1–U4
scr / scr-approve	the only legal way to change a built spec
review · resume · recover · replay	review pipeline, HITL, crash recovery, audit trail
deploy-review · deploy-outcome · triage [--fix]	Gates 5–6
serve · worker	webhook mode + queue workers (SQLite, one host)
bench · product-bench · compound --pr	the two benchmarks + the compounding loop

Setup: uv sync, ANTHROPIC_API_KEY (yours — keys live only in your environment, are never written to the workspace or git, and every provider errors loudly if its key is missing). OPENAI_API_KEY optional but recommended: it puts a real GPT-5 in the security and deploy-config voter seats, breaking same-family self-preference when Claude reviews Claude-written code; without it those seats visibly fall back (substituted_from). GEMINI_API_KEY/XAI_API_KEY optional likewise. gh auth, Docker optional (network-isolated test sandbox), Node optional (JS test gate). Operations guide: RUNBOOK.md.

Honest limits (today)

• The outer loop runs end-to-end and survived its first real-provider smoke, but its release bar is honest: it is unproven until a real Gate PL5 records a real kill or pivot on a live cycle.
• Cloud services are guided, not auto-provisioned; deploys generate artifacts + instructions, the button stays yours.
• 小程序 page-level testing needs miniprogram-simulate installed; pure-logic modules are gated via node --test today.
• Single-machine operation; crash recovery is per-review, Celery/Redis multi-instance supervision is the documented upgrade path.

Roadmap

v0.8 ✅	all four downstream stage MASes (code review, test gate, deploy review, maintenance)
v0.9 ✅	greenfield autopilot for non-technical founders (FDR → product)
v0.10 ✅	founder experience complete + measured (Studio UI, product benchmark)
v0.11–v0.12 ✅	traditional-industry adoption track + hardening
v0.13 ✅	product-loop substrate: typed claim ledger, claim_lint, evidence snapshots, synthetic-persona scan, source standing, user_data_taint
v0.14 ✅	safe-publish: the seven deterministic marketing backstops, channel profiles, Gate PL3 scoped approvals — a human presses every publish button, and it never spends money
v0.15 ✅	evidence: analytics/feedback privacy boundary, metric vocabulary with baseline-resetting definitions, cohort reads with sufficiency teeth, attribution typed at the tool boundary — only holdouts ground causal claims
v0.16 ✅	upstream P0–P2: opportunity sensing, market & viability, PRD with required kill criteria, machine-checked handoff into Discovery
v0.17 ✅	experiments: hash-pinned pre-registration, two-stage FDR-controlled screening→validation, sequential peeking, guardrail vetoes, inconclusive-enters-nothing
v0.18 ✅	closed loop: evaluate_kill_criteria (a fired criterion cannot close without a recorded human decision), append-only kill registry, hypothesis reconciliation, the five loop metrics
v0.19–v0.20 ✅	the outer loop operable end-to-end: gate CLIs, then the four LLM stages as one-command runs; first real-provider smoke (three wiring bugs found by gates, fixed); 24 voter fixture-registration gates + voter-gate
M2–M7 ✅	build screenshots (gated-visible), in-Studio correction loop with SCR-backed scope changes, 验收清单 walkthrough, telemetry + digest, 微信支付/登录/订阅 blocks, estimate hints + undo
v0.21 ✅	platform editions + distribution (docs 24–25): init --edition with narrowing-only edition_lint, the three START-HERE doors + weekly founder review + procurement pack, replay --demo (a real audit trail, offline, no API key), --from-bench templates that are the benchmark fixtures, opt-in aggregate-only telemetry, the published benchmark page, and ADR-U29: this README is checked against claims/platform.yaml by the test suite — asserting beyond the ledger fails the build
v0.22 ✅	the launch pass, prepared (P20): launch/ holds the platform's own PRD (kill criterion: 4 weeks over the attention budget cuts scope at Gate PL5), a launch post that survives all its own backstops, and a hash-pinned pre-registered experiment whose power check honestly returns BLOCKED at current traffic — the suite keeps all three green; plus CONTRIBUTING (gated contributions, bus-factor-1 honesty, watch items with falsifiers)
v0.23 ✅	complex-systems gap closure, deterministic core (docs 26–28, P21–P26): lintable perf ACs + VALID/INVALID load-run typing + capacity.yaml headroom arithmetic (perf lane calibrated: see roadmap v0.24); realtime delta (det_sim_scan, replay-identity/cross-build/desync checks, tick budgets); streaming delta (stream_contract_check — the word "default" is lexically illegal, exactly-once typed-or-downgraded, backpressure scan); architecture fitness (deps.yaml graph → arch_contract_check, brownfield checkpoint debt); delivery hardening (environment promotion DAG, flag_lint with owners+expiry, migration_rehearsal with reversibility round-trip)
v0.24 ✅	lane execution wrappers + calibration: k6 scripts compiled from perf ACs (thresholds ARE the AC; absent binary = visible skip with the script on record), netem condition profiles with gated apply, schema-registry wrapper + contract-file reconciliation — and the seeded perf-defect calibration ran for real: 5 of 5 defects caught at the 3x relative-detection factor (loopback, low parity, honestly scoped — satisfies no AC), converting the lane from PROVISIONAL to CALIBRATED
v0.25 ✅	the Sweep role (doc 29): autoproduct sweep harvests the maintenance queues the ledgers already keep (expired flags, checkpoint debt, stale claims/capacity, due watch items, contract drift), patches only allowlisted chores under the behavior-preservation contract (out-of-scope diffs abort), caps open PRs to the attention budget, records clean passes with a snapshot hash, and alarms on over-action — SW0 report-only by default, promotion is your recorded decision at the weekly review
v0.26 ✅	full design-doc cross-reference (docs 08–29 audited against the code): the implementation map records every doc's shipped mechanism, tag, and named open items; gap-closure code from the audit — operations-policy.yaml (per-stage WIP + the shed rule + ci_concurrency), the hot-files.yaml shared-file registry + lane_check, the four 小程序 preflights (mp_size_check/mp_domain_check/mp_setdata_lint/mp_privacy_check), and profiles/game.yaml
v0.27 ✅	audit gap closures, round two: GitHub Actions CI (the suite — including the self-linting README — now runs on every push, making "fails CI" literal), the §41.1 structured profile schema (add-only, composable), doc-16's cascade policy with the model-family heterogeneity floor + serial merge-queue admission (sweep never starves features) + the gepa.yaml budget schema (proposer-off by default), and the debt tools (radon/jscpd/vulture, availability-gated, feeding Sweep's queues)
v0.28 ✅	gap-closure plan + phase A (the plan is a committed artifact; phases B–D queued): web det-tool runners (axe/Lighthouse/size-limit, gated), the data NFR grammar + lineage impact check, the full typed upstream verdict vocabulary, Gate P1 platform preflight (stale checklists and evidence-free checkboxes both fail; a named human submits), data-classification tags with downgrade refusal, and CHANGELOG.md
v0.29 ✅	plan phase B: five profile voter charters (web DesignFidelity/A11ySemantics/PerformanceDelta, 小程序 PlatformFit, app DeviceReality) and 8-fixture registration gates for them AND the three data voters — voter-gate web|miniprogram|app|data now serves every family under the same 87.5% contract
v0.30 ✅	plan phase C: the cost/observability ledger (prices are config never constants, unpriced calls counted never zeroed, the monthly cap warns and a human decides; per-review tool-audit + evidence-ledger receipts; /metrics in Prometheus text, aggregate-only), the module-spec invariant layer (.mas/specs/*.spec.yaml — SPEC_DRIFT_UNDOCUMENTED on unexpected change patterns, forbidden side effects scanned in diffs), and named signal webhooks (/webhooks/sentry|datadog|pagerduty → the incident inbox, bearer-authed, deduped)
next 🔜	the v3.0.0 design gate: one live loop ending in a real recorded kill-or-pivot at Gate PL5

Star history

---

MIT · design docs: autoproduct-design