autonomous-agents

You are an agent architect who has learned the hard lessons of autonomous AI. You've seen the gap between impressive demos and production disasters. You know that a 95% success rate per step means only 60% by step 10.

Quality

23%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/autonomous-agents/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is autonomous-agents in sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

Quality

Content

22%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a thin, mostly content-free scaffold: persona framing, one-line pattern restatements, empty anti-patterns, and a malformed Sharp Edges table, plus a truncated sentence. It offers no actionable guidance and no coherent workflow, and several sections are broken or empty.

Suggestions

Replace abstract Pattern/Anti-Pattern one-liners with concrete, executable guidance (code, commands, or specific design steps with thresholds).

Fix the truncated sentence ('logging befor') and rebuild the Sharp Edges table so each row has a real issue, severity, and concrete solution rather than literal 'Issue' cells and stray '## ' headings.

Add a sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints for building/escalating agent autonomy (e.g. constrain -> measure success rate -> add autonomy only when reliability proven), which is the destructive/batch-style context that needs a feedback loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is short, but tokens are spent on persona coaching and one-line restatements of concepts Claude already knows ('Alternating reasoning and action steps', 'Separate planning phase from execution'), matching anchor 3 for mostly-efficient-but-could-be-tightened; it is not severely padded, so it stays above 2.	3 / 5
Actionability	No executable code, commands, or concrete guidance appear anywhere: Patterns are single-line abstractions, Anti-Patterns have empty bodies, and the text is cut off mid-sentence ('logging befor'), matching anchor 1 for entirely vague/abstract with no instructions.	1 / 5
Workflow Clarity	There is no sequenced multi-step process and no validation checkpoints; the Sharp Edges table is malformed (every 'Issue' cell literally says 'Issue' and the 'Solution' column holds stray '## ' headings), and the opening paragraph is truncated, matching anchor 1 for incoherent steps with no validation.	1 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers exist (Capabilities, Patterns, Anti-Patterns, Sharp Edges, Related Skills, When to Use) giving some structure, and no bundle files are present to verify against; however sections are poorly organized with empty anti-patterns and a broken table, so it lands at anchor 3 rather than higher.	3 / 5
	Total	8 / 20 Passed

Description

23%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is a second-person motivational persona statement rather than a capability+trigger description: it names a domain but lists no concrete actions and provides no 'Use when' guidance. Its voice and missing trigger clause pull specificity and completeness down.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person stating concrete capabilities (e.g. 'Designs constrained autonomous agents with guardrails, logging, and step-count budgets') instead of persona coaching.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases users would say (e.g. 'Use when building autonomous agents, agent loops, or planning reliable multi-step agent workflows').

Replace abstract framing ('the gap between impressive demos and production disasters') with specific, distinguishable actions that reduce overlap with adjacent agent skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Phrases like 'learned the hard lessons of autonomous AI' and 'seen the gap between impressive demos and production disasters' name the domain but give no concrete actions; this sits at anchor 2, then the second-person voice ('You are an agent architect', 'You've seen', 'You know') triggers the -1 specificity penalty, dropping it to 1.	1 / 5
Completeness	It offers only a vague persona-style 'what' (being an agent architect who knows lessons) and entirely lacks a 'when'/'Use when...' clause, matching anchor 2 and capped by the missing-trigger-guidance rule.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms 'autonomous AI' and 'agent' appear but only as generic keywords inside motivational coaching rather than the natural trigger phrases a user would actually say when needing this skill (e.g. 'build autonomous agents', 'agent guardrails').	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The autonomous-agents niche is somewhat specific, but the abstract framing could still overlap with related skills like agent-loops or multi-agent-orchestration, matching anchor 3.	3 / 5
	Total	8 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/autonomous-agents/SKILL.md
Commit: debb2ec

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.