name: autopilot-charter
description: "Decide which of your recurring rituals to put on autopilot — and which to keep manual. Use when asked what to automate, how to set up recurring AI runs, which reports or briefings could run on a schedule, or to design an automation charter for a team. Produces a ritual inventory with automate/assist/keep-manual calls, guardrails per ritual, and a rollout order."
Autopilot Charter Skill
Inventory the reports, briefings, and reviews you produce on a rhythm, and decide — deliberately — which ones an AI should run on a schedule, which it should only draft, and which stay human.
What This Skill Produces
- A ritual inventory: every recurring artifact, its cadence, audience, and inputs
- An automate / assist / keep-manual call per ritual, with the reason
- Guardrails for each automated ritual (review gate, failure behaviour, escalation)
- A rollout order — which ritual to automate first and why
Required Inputs
Ask for (if not already provided):
- The recurring outputs the user or team produces (weekly updates, monthly reviews, monitors, digests)
- Who consumes each one and what they do with it
- Where the inputs live (git, analytics, CRM, inbox, notes) and whether an agent can reach them
- Tolerance for error per artifact — what happens if a run is wrong or missing?
Classification Framework
Score each ritual on four questions, then classify:
| Question | Points toward automating |
|---|
| Inputs reachable? Can an agent read the sources without a human fetching them? | Yes |
| Structure stable? Does the output look the same every cycle? | Yes |
| Cost of a bad run? Would a wrong or stale edition mislead a decision? | Low cost |
| Delta-shaped? Is the value "what changed since last time" rather than fresh judgement? | Yes |
- Automate — all four favourable. Schedule it end-to-end; the human sees the result, not the work.
- Assist — structure is stable but judgement or unreachable inputs remain. Schedule a draft; a human finishes it.
- Keep manual — high cost of error, or the ritual's value is the human thinking (performance feedback, strategy). Do not automate; record why so nobody re-litigates it.
Guardrails (required for every "Automate")
For each automated ritual, define:
- Review gate — does an edition ship unreviewed, or land as a draft for approval? Default to draft for anything audience-facing.
- Failure behaviour — if a run fails or a source is unreachable, does it skip, retry, or alert? A silent gap is worse than an error message.
- Staleness marker — every edition states when it ran and which sources it read.
- Kill criteria — what result (two wrong editions? a complaint from the audience?) takes it off autopilot.
Output Format
Automation Charter: [Team / Person]
| Ritual | Cadence | Audience | Call | Why |
|---|
| [artifact] | [weekly/monthly] | [who] | Automate / Assist / Manual | [one line] |
Guardrails for automated rituals:
[Ritual] — Review gate: [ship / draft-for-approval]. On failure: [skip+alert / retry]. Staleness marker: [where it appears]. Kill criteria: [condition].
Rollout order: Start with [ritual] because [lowest risk / most time saved]. Then [next]. Revisit this charter after [period].
Next step per ritual: use schedule-recipe to wire each "Automate" onto a runner, and delta-briefing to make recurring briefs report only what changed.
Quality Checks
Anti-Patterns
Example Trigger Phrases
- "What to automate?"
- "How to set up recurring AI runs?"
- "Which reports?"
- "Design an automation charter for a team."