ai-agent-development

AI agent development workflow for building autonomous agents, multi-agent systems, and agent orchestration with CrewAI, LangGraph, and custom agents.

Quality

60%

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 ./skills/antigravity-ai-agent-development/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is ai-agent-development in sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills

Quality

Content

53%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 content is well-structured with a clear phased workflow and concrete delegation prompts, but it is held back by repetitive generic action lists, high-level (rather than executable) per-phase guidance, and the absence of explicit validation feedback loops.

Suggestions

Collapse the repeated generic five-step 'Actions' template into a single shared pattern, or replace each phase's actions with phase-specific, executable steps (e.g. concrete CrewAI/LangGraph setup commands or code).

Add explicit validation feedback loops for the testing steps — e.g. 'Run agent eval; if failures occur, fix and re-run' — to lift workflow clarity above 3.

Provide at least one concrete, copy-paste code or config example per phase instead of only a one-line @-invocation prompt.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Per-section prose is terse and avoids over-explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the same generic five-step 'Actions' template is repeated across all seven phases, which could be tightened into a shared pattern rather than restated each time.	3 / 5
Actionability	Copy-paste prompts ('Use @crewai to build multi-agent system with roles') and named skills/frameworks give some concrete, executable guidance, but the per-phase 'Actions' lists remain high-level hints ('Implement agent logic', 'Configure memory') missing the specific steps to execute.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear seven-phase sequence is present with a final 'Quality Gates' checklist and a 'Test' step per phase, but there are no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops, so checkpoints are implicit rather than enforced.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well-organized with clear headings (Overview, When to Use, Workflow Phases, Architecture, Quality Gates, Related Bundles, Limitations) and clearly signaled references to peer skills via @-names and a Related Bundles section; no bundle files exist to split further, so only minor organization gaps remain.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

66%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 clearly conveys what the skill does and names specific frameworks, giving it solid specificity and distinctiveness, but it lacks any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 and holds the overall score in the mid-range.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when building autonomous agents, multi-agent systems, or agent orchestration with CrewAI/LangGraph.'

Include common synonyms or phrasings users would say (e.g. 'agent frameworks', 'AI assistants', 'multi-agent orchestration') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Mention the additional scope the body covers (tool integration, agent memory, evaluation) so the description's capability list matches the skill's full breadth.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and lists several concrete capabilities — 'building autonomous agents, multi-agent systems, and agent orchestration with CrewAI, LangGraph, and custom agents' — with named frameworks, but omits tool integration/memory/evaluation so coverage has minor gaps rather than being comprehensive.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly stated (building autonomous/multi-agent/orchestrated systems with named frameworks), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms users would say ('autonomous agents', 'multi-agent systems', 'agent orchestration', 'CrewAI', 'LangGraph') but lacks common synonyms or variations, so keyword coverage is good rather than comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The named-framework niche ('CrewAI, LangGraph, and custom agents') is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against closely related AI/ML or RAG skills; it is not yet a fully tight niche with minimal conflict.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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: boisenoise/skills-collections
Path: skills/antigravity-ai-agent-development/SKILL.md
Commit: df0d0e6

Reviewed: ~1 hour 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.