agentsclimarketplace

Ultrapex

Skill coroboros/agent-skills/skills/ultrapex

AI agent skills for Claude Code and compatible agents — workflow, coding, design, Claude Code meta, media, productivity, and writing

Install
npx -y skills add coroboros/agent-skills --skill ultrapex

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 2 stars2 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Outcome-driven end-to-end implementation for frontier models — scope the task, commit to an approach, build, and adversarially verify with parallel subagents, in one run. Use it on a Fable-class session whenever the user wants something implemented — "implement", "build", "add", "fix", "refactor", a multi-file feature, or an ambiguous spec that needs scoping first — even when they don't name a workflow. The judgment-first sibling of /apex — same mission, invariants instead of step scripts.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

9.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Ultrapex

<!-- canonical:adversarial-verification:start -->

Critical — Adversarial verification

These rules govern how this skill trusts its own output — apply them whenever it verifies a claim, a defect, a source, or a decision before acting on it.

  • Refute by default. Treat each non-trivial finding as unproven until a fresh-context check fails to refute it — the context that produced a claim cannot reliably clear it.
  • No silent drop. Every finding flips the conclusion, is refuted in writing, or is filed as a risk or open question. A finding that vanishes without a verdict is a defect.
  • Don't re-litigate settled facts. Spend adversarial effort on load-bearing or contested claims; let established facts pass. Over-refutation manufactures false doubt — it does not add rigor.
  • Stay selective and cost-aware. Scale verification to the stakes; reversible, low-impact work gets a light touch, not a full adversarial sweep.
  • Concede only to a strong rebuttal. A weak counter folds into the finding or gets filed; it does not overturn it.
<!-- canonical:adversarial-verification:end --> <!-- canonical:execution-discipline:start -->

Important — Engineering discipline

These rules govern how this skill changes code — apply them whenever it writes, edits, or proposes a fix.

  • Minimal scope. Only what's directly requested or clearly necessary — no extra files, no abstraction for one use, no configurability nobody asked for, no error handling for states that can't happen. Validate at system boundaries; trust internal code.
  • General solution, not the test cases. Implement the real logic for all valid inputs; never hard-code to inputs or bolt on workaround scripts to make a test pass. Tests verify the solution; they don't define it. A test is wrong? Say so — don't bend correct code to a broken test.
  • Investigate before claiming. Never speculate about code you haven't opened; read the referenced file before answering. Ground every claim in what you actually read, not a plausible guess.
<!-- canonical:execution-discipline:end --> <!-- canonical:label-hygiene:start -->

Critical — Label hygiene

Internal planning labels are author coordinates, not reader coordinates. Strip them from every shipped artifact this skill emits — code, comments, commit subjects/bodies, PR titles/descriptions, release notes, doc paragraphs, non-trivial comments.

  • Workstream and task labelsWS-N, Phase-A, Step-3, issue or ticket numbers, plan phase names from the source spec, issue body, or planning artifact. Translate to the domain noun (Runs the battery script (WS-2)Runs the battery script). <!-- noqa: internal-label -->
  • Process language — "the rebuild", "the prior <file>", "carried verbatim from", "the cleanup pass", "the audit", "spec AC" standalone. Replace with the concrete fact (carries the routing from the prior aggregationroutes via the merge keys in the synthesis module). <!-- noqa: internal-label -->
  • Plan-internal references — "as the brief says", "per the workstream", "from the forge artifact". Drop the reference; state the fact directly.

Carve-outs — literal WS-N is legitimate where the skill IS the format authority (forge templates, apex rule documentation). Reviewer-facing dev docs (e.g. MIGRATION.md under tests/<skill>/) may reference deleted artifacts by their author-time names.

<!-- canonical:label-hygiene:end --> <!-- canonical:writing-rules:start -->

Important — Writing rules

These rules govern every prose artifact this skill emits — READMEs, CHANGELOGs, commit messages, PR bodies, release notes, doc paragraphs, non-trivial comments. Apply them at draft time, verify before output.

  • Match the surrounding style — punctuation, capitalization, backtick conventions, em-dash vs parens, bullet style.
  • Every sentence changes the reader's understanding. Cut it otherwise.
  • Front-load the verb — "Creates", not "This helps you create".
  • Concrete over abstract. Lists for ≥3 enumerable items.
  • Assert positively. Reserve negation for real constraints (NEVER commit secrets).
  • No marketing words: powerful, robust, seamlessly, leverage, unlock, comprehensive, delightful.
  • No AI tells: delve, tapestry, intricate, pivotal, testament, underscore, crucial, garner, showcase, additionally, moreover, furthermore, indeed.
  • After drafting English prose, invoke /humanize-en if installed.
<!-- canonical:writing-rules:end -->

Model scope

Built for Claude Fable 5 and newer same-class frontier models: it hands you outcomes and invariants, and trusts your judgment on everything between. On a lesser model that freedom becomes rope — switch to /apex, the same mission with step gates and templates. If you are unsure which class you are, you are not Fable-class: use /apex.

Mission

Take an implementation task from request to verified completion in a single run — scope it, decide the approach, build it production-grade, verify it adversarially, report it with evidence. You own the how; the contract below defines what must hold.

Parameters

Parsed from $ARGUMENTS; everything after the flags is the task description.

FlagMeaning
-sSave the final report to ~/.agents/output/{project}/ultrapex/ultrapex-{slug}.md
-f <path>Feed — consume a producer artifact (usually /forge) as the task context; Read exactly that path, no reconstruction. Missing path → fail loud, regenerate via the producer

The contract

Five invariants. Breaking one is a failed run, however good the code.

  1. Understand before building. Read the code paths you will touch — exports, immediate callers, shared utilities — before the first edit; "looks orthogonal" is the classic blind spot.
  2. Decide and commit. When you have enough information to act, act. Pause for the user only at a genuine fork — a destructive or irreversible action, a real scope change, or input only they can provide — and bring a recommendation, not a survey. Anywhere else, state the assumption and keep moving.
  3. Build complete and scoped. Production-grade, never half-finished — and every changed line traces to the request. The Engineering-discipline block above owns the scope rules; they hold under time pressure too.
  4. Verify adversarially. The Adversarial-verification block above is the doctrine; the mechanics here: fresh-context refuter subagents scaled to the blast radius — several independent refuters for irreversible or published work, one fresh pass for the contained — judged on majority or evidence, never a single-refuter veto. Run the tests and keep the output. No subagents in your harness → self-refute in fresh sequential passes.
  5. Report grounded. Every claim in the report audits against a tool result from this run. Outcome first; failing parts reported as failing, skipped parts named. A polished report of unverified work is the worst output this skill can produce.

Shape of a run

These are checkpoints a sound run naturally passes through, not gated steps — linger exactly where the task demands it:

  • Scope — restate the outcome you are committing to, in one or two sentences. With -f, the fed artifact is the scope; honor its decisions.
  • Plan — sketch just enough to commit: load-bearing files, the approach, the verification you'll accept as proof. Surface a real fork now if one exists.
  • Build — delegate independent subtasks to parallel subagents and keep working while they run; intervene when one drifts. Match the codebase's conventions over your taste.
  • Verify — invariant 4, before any "done" leaves your mouth.
  • Report — invariant 5, in the structure below.

Report structure

# [task title]
## Outcome        — what is now true that wasn't, one short paragraph
## Changes        — files touched, each with a one-line why
## Verification   — what was run, what it proved, evidence (test output, refuter verdicts)
## Open items     — anything not done, not verified, or deferred — named plainly

With -s, save it under ~/.agents/output/{project}/ultrapex/{project} = kebab-cased basename of the git toplevel (cwd basename outside a repo), {slug} = kebab of the task intent, ≤5 words — then report the fully-expanded absolute path.

Siblings

  • /forge decides and plans → ultrapex -f <forge artifact> builds it.
  • /apex — same mission, step-gated and resumable (-r), with an economy mode; the right tool below Fable-class or for long multi-session efforts.
  • /oneshot — trivial, well-scoped single tasks.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.