ignoring the automation aspect,
> Then you write exactly WHAT you are going to do with the data and then you send the proposed "routines"
this roughly matches up with the idea of "preregistration" of research, i.e. you define and share what your experimental method is going to be before you start looking at the data and performing analysis, to help guard against some unconscious or conscious decisions to adjust the method after you have observed the experimental data.
i've never heard of cos.io before but they're a top hit for me when searching for "preregistration" https://cos.io/prereg/
Andrew Gelman has written quite a lot about related topics in the past (the "replication crisis" - especially in the social sciences, "p hacking", "the garden of forking paths" http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_... , https://andrewgelman.com/2017/03/09/preregistration-like-ran... )
I quite like how Gelman theoretically frames this in his "forking paths" paper:
Consider the following testing procedures:
1. Simple classical test based on a unique test
statistic, T, which when applied to the observed
data [ y ] yields T(y).
2. Classical test pre-chosen from a set of
possible tests: thus, T(y; phi), with
preregistered phi. For example, phi might
correspond to choices of control variables in a
regression, transformations, and data coding and
excluding rules, as well as the decision of
which main effect or interaction to focus on.
3. Researcher degrees of freedom without fishing:
computing a single test based on the data, but in
an environment where a different test would have
been performed given different data; thus
T(y; phi(y)), where the function phi(.) is
observed in the observed case.
4. "Fishing": computing T(y;phi_j) for j=1,...,J:
that is, performing J tests and then reporting
the best results given the data, thus
T(y; phi^{best}(y)).