by KbWen
Governance framework for AI coding agents. It runs them through a five-step workflow (plan, build, review, test, ship) where no step counts as done without evidence. Drop-in rules and guardrails for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, and Antigravity, via AGENTS.md.
# Add to your Claude Code skills
git clone https://github.com/KbWen/agentic-osLast scanned: 7/26/2026
{
"issues": [
{
"file": ".agents/skills/doc-lookup/SKILL.md",
"line": 88,
"type": "prompt-injection",
"message": "Possible instruction-override phrase: \"ignore previous instructions\"",
"severity": "medium"
},
{
"file": "AGENTS.md",
"line": 22,
"type": "prompt-injection",
"message": "Possible instruction-override phrase: \"ignore previous instructions\"",
"severity": "medium"
}
],
"status": "PASSED",
"scannedAt": "2026-07-26T06:35:35.584Z",
"npmAuditRan": true,
"pipAuditRan": true,
"promptInjectionRan": true
}agentic-os is an open-source ai agents skill for AI coding assistants such as Claude Code, Codex CLI, and ChatGPT, built by KbWen. Governance framework for AI coding agents. It runs them through a five-step workflow (plan, build, review, test, ship) where no step counts as done without evidence. Drop-in rules and guardrails for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, and Antigravity, via AGENTS.md. It has 101 GitHub stars.
Yes. agentic-os passed SkillsLLM's automated security scan — a dependency vulnerability audit plus prompt-injection heuristics — with no high-severity issues. You can read the full report in the Security Report section on this page.
Clone the repository with "git clone https://github.com/KbWen/agentic-os" and add it to your Claude Code skills directory (see the Installation section above).
agentic-os is primarily written in Python. It is open-source under KbWen on GitHub, so you can review or fork the full source.
Yes. SkillsLLM lists many other AI Agents skills you can browse and compare side by side. Open the AI Agents category from the badge at the top of this page, or use the Related Skills and comparison links further down to weigh agentic-os against similar tools.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
The /bootstrap, /review, and /ship above are plain text prompts — your agent maps them to the workflow files in the repo, so they run the same in Cursor or Codex as in Claude Code.
Or run a gate yourself, no install — the credential scan that catches a leaked key before it reaches git history:
bash demo/run.sh # Windows (PowerShell): pwsh demo/run.ps1
An AI agent wrote this file and reported: "Done — config added."
----------------------------------------------------------------
DB_HOST=prod.internal
aws_access_key_id = AKIA****************
----------------------------------------------------------------
Without a gate, that commit lands and the key is in git history forever.
Agentic OS runs this before the commit is allowed:
$ scan_credentials.py config.env
CREDENTIAL PATTERN(S) DETECTED (values redacted):
config.env:2: aws-access-key-id
Rotate the exposed secret, remove it from the change, then retry.
Commit BLOCKED. The agent said "done"; the machine said no — and it
redacted the value instead of echoing your secret back at you.
Your agent can still cut a corner. What it can't do is get a leaked secret, a green check over zero tests, or a skipped review past the hooks and CI — those run whether it cooperates or not. The key above is generated at runtime and redacted on output, so the demo never stores a real secret.
A rules file — Cursor Rules, a plain AGENTS.md — is a prompt the agent can ignore. Agentic OS keeps that discipline (plan before editing, no unasked-for refactors) and adds a layer the agent doesn't control:
| Failure mode | What catches it | Where |
|---|---|---|
| A secret committed to history | scan_credentials.py (shown above) |
pre-commit hook + CI |
| "Tests pass" with no tests | CI runs the real suite | pull request |
| A phase skipped with no evidence | validate.sh reads the work trail |
pre-commit (local) |
The third row is the part a rules file can't reach: validate.sh parses each task's work log and fails if a required phase was skipped or its evidence is missing. The local pre-commit hook is opt-in and you can --no-verify past it; the three required CI checks (Framework Validation, ShellCheck, Check Markdown Links) are the floor that can't be skipped — they must pass before any PR merges. The security scanning jobs (credential scan, SAST, dependency audit) run on every PR but are not required merge checks unless you add them to branch protection. The Security badge above is this repo running the same credential and SAST gates on its own every push.
Agentic OS is the enforcement layer. A rules file or a skill pack tells your agent how to behave; this is the part that checks it actually did - in your git hooks and CI, where the agent's own report doesn't get a vote. Already have those? Keep them. This sits underneath and turns the discipline they ask for into a check that can fail your commit or your build.
Every task runs a gated workflow, and the rigor scales to the risk. Skip a phase and validate.sh fails — but a typo doesn't run the same gauntlet as a feature:
tiny-fix classify --> execute --> evidence --> done
quick-win bootstrap --> plan --> implement --> evidence --> ship
feature bootstrap --> spec --> plan --> implement --> review --> test --> ship
And the ship gate is not a formality:
ship attempt --> [ no review/test evidence ] --> BLOCKED
ship attempt --> [ evidence on record ] --> SHIPPED
The agent can still cut a corner. It just can't cut this one
past a check it doesn't control.
The full set of paths, by classification:
| Classification | Required phases |
|---|---|
| tiny-fix | Classify → Execute → Evidence → Done |
| quick-win | Bootstrap → Plan → Implement → Evidence → Ship |
| feature | Bootstrap → Spec → Plan → Implement → Review → Test → Handoff → Ship |
| hotfix | Bootstrap → Research → Plan → Implement → Review → Test → Ship |
| architecture-change | Bootstrap → ADR → Spec → Plan → Implement → Review → Test → Handoff → Ship |
| Machine-enforced backstops | The failure modes above are caught by your git hooks, the validator, and CI — not by the agent's own report. The agent can cut a corner; it can't get that corner past the checks it doesn't control. |
| Skills that auto-attach by phase | The workflow puts the right checklist in front of the agent by task type — TDD on a feature, an auth-security pass on login code — so you don't wire skills by hand. Guidance, not gates. |
| Memory that survives handoffs | Decisions and evidence live in one source-of-truth state file, so they carry across sessions and agents instead of resetting with the chat. |
| Cross-platform | One set of governance files works across every major AI coding agent — the same rules whichever one you run. |
| Token-efficient by design | Governance scales to risk: a tiny-fix skips the heavy guardrails (~5,000 tokens), so you're not paying frontier-model rates to fix a typo. |
The workflow attaches these by classification, so the relevant checklist is in front of the agent at the right phase — an auth-security pass when it touches login code, forward-only checks on a migration. They're structured guidance, not machine gates (the gates are the hooks, validator, and CI above); what they remove is the manual wiring.
| Skill | Trigger | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Test-Driven Development | feature, architecture-change | Red → Green → Refactor cycles |
| Systematic Debugging | bug encounter | 4-phase root cause analysis |
| Red Team / Adversarial | review, test | Classification-based security analysis |
| API Design | API endpoints detected | Endpoint validation enforcement |
| Auth Security | auth code detected | Hashing, tokens, rate limiting |
| Database Design | migration detected | Forward-only ORM-aware migration safety |
| Frontend Patterns | UI components | Component and state management patterns |
| Parallel Agent Dispatching | complex tasks | Coordinated subagent execution |
| Subagent-Driven Development | multi-module tasks | Multi-agent coordination |
| Karpathy Principles | all coding tasks | Behavioral guardrails against common LLM coding mistakes |
| Production Readiness | feature, architecture-change | Pre-ship observa |