agent-design-review

Featured

Review an LLM agent design and find where it will be unreliable, expensive, or unsafe. Use when asked to review an agent architecture, critique a multi-step/tool-using agent, debug an agent that loops or goes off-task, or harden an agent before launch. Produces a structured review — task fit, control flow, tools, memory/context, failure handling, cost, and safety — with prioritised findings and fixes.

AI & Automation 1,404 stars 250 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 96/100

Stars 20%
100
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
50
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Agent Design Review Skill Most agents don't fail because the model is weak — they fail because the *design* lets them loop, call the wrong tool, lose the thread across steps, or burn tokens with no stopping rule. This skill reviews an agent's architecture against the decisions that actually determine reliability, and ranks the fixes — so "it works in the demo but not in prod" becomes a specific list of changes. (Writing a new agent spec? Use [`agent-spec`](../agent-spec/SKILL.md).) ## Working from a brief Given a sketch ("a research agent that searches, reads, and writes a report"), **deliver the full review anyway** — infer the likely control flow and tools, label the inference, and flag what to confirm. Never withhold the review for missing detail. ## Required Inputs Ask for these only if they aren't already provided (else infer and label): - **What the agent does** �� its goal, and what a successful run produces. - **Control flow** — single prompt, plan-then-execute, ReAct loop, or multi-agent; and the stopping condition. - **Tools & actions** — what it can call, and which actions have side effects (write, send, pay). - **Memory & context** — what state carries across steps, and how context is kept in budget. - **Constraints** — latency, cost per run, and the trust boundary (untrusted input? real-world actions?). ## Output Format ### Agent Review: [agent] **1. Summary** — will this be reliable in production? The top 3 risks and the single change that helps most....

Details

Author
mohitagw15856
Repository
mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
Created
8 months ago
Last Updated
today
Language
HTML
License
MIT

Integrates with

Bundled in these plugins

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Listed

agent-trust-review

Review whether an AI agent can be trusted in production by sorting every risk area into covered (with evidence), declined on purpose (with a reason), or genuinely missing. Use when someone asks "is this agent ready to ship", "what are the risks of this agent", "are we covered", "write the risk section", "what haven't we tested", or is preparing a launch review, security review, or stakeholder briefing for an LLM agent or AI feature that takes actions.

0 Updated 2 days ago
vishalhabib99
AI & Automation Listed

agent-production-readiness

Reviews an AI agent for production readiness across evaluation, cost, observability, guardrails, human oversight, reliability, and governance. Use when someone is preparing an agent for production or a go-live, asking whether an agent is ready to ship, reviewing an agent's design, prompt, tools, or deployment, or hardening a working prototype into a dependable system. Produces an evidence-based scorecard and a prioritized list of the gaps to close.

0 Updated 2 months ago
hamidettefagh
AI & Automation Listed

agent-design

design and review llm agent systems, tool interfaces, and skill boundaries. use when chatgpt needs to decide whether a task should be handled by a prompt, workflow, skill, tool, single-agent loop, or multi-agent system; define tool schemas, instructions, guardrails, evaluation plans, or permission boundaries; or critique an existing agent design for over-orchestration, weak context handling, missing verification, or poor tool design.

76 Updated 1 weeks ago
wibus-wee