CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

multi-agent-design

设计或评审多 Agent 系统、判断该用单 Agent 还是多 Agent 时使用——选择对等/管理者/去中心化协作拓扑、决定上下文是否共享、设计 Agent 间通信与共享文件系统、诊断多 Agent 失败模式(并发冲突、错误级联、同质趋同、互相扯皮、循环失控)。覆盖协作架构选择依据、多 Agent 优于单 Agent 的新信息判据、控制平面四原语与虚拟文件系统四类区域的设计检查表。

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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.

A dense, well-structured design guide with concrete decision tables, checklists, and a copy-ready handoff protocol — genuinely actionable for an instruction-only skill. Its main weaknesses are references to companion files that are absent from the bundle, a few sentences of standard distributed-systems exposition, and the absence of explicit validation/recovery checkpoints in the recommended workflows.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced companion materials (chapter10/ examples, book/chapter10.md) inside the skill's references/ directory, or remove/rewrite the "配套代码" and "深度阅读" sections so no navigation path points to files that don't exist in the bundle.

Add explicit validation checkpoints to the key workflows, e.g., after topology selection verify the new-information criterion is actually satisfied before committing to a multi-agent build, and specify the concrete timeout value instead of "N 分钟".

Trim the few passages that restate well-known facts (quadratic growth of point-to-point links, IPC paradigm analogies) to pure design verdicts to tighten token efficiency.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and judgment-carrying (tables, checklists, distilled design verdicts like "最强的模型给 Manager") with no padded sections, but a few sentences restate standard knowledge Claude already has (e.g., "点对点连接数随 Agent 数平方增长且要求双方同时在线"), keeping it just short of the every-token-earns-its-place anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance dominates: a topology decision table, the four-zone VFS checklist, the role-switch comparison table, a copy-ready handoff protocol dict, and specific mechanisms like "用 progress.md 最后修改时间超过 N 分钟无变化来判定卡住并触发超时兜底". It falls short of fully executable because some guidance remains at principle level (e.g., "困难任务给强模型"), "N 分钟" is left unspecified, and there is no worked example applying the decision tree.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Decision flow is explicitly sequenced ("两个维度先定,再谈实现"), the topology decision tree routes task traits to concrete choices, and each pitfall pairs a failure with a specific countermeasure (optimistic locking with version checks, progress.md staleness timeout). It falls short of the top anchor because there are no explicit validate-and-recover checkpoints in the recommended workflows.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md itself is well organized with clear sections, but the "配套代码" and "深度阅读" sections reference paths (chapter10/..., book/chapter10.md) that do not exist anywhere in the skill bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), so the advertised navigation targets are dangling and cannot actually be loaded.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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.

A strong description: explicit use-when triggers, concrete capability list with named failure modes, and a distinct multi-agent design niche. The only weakness is mild synonym coverage (orchestration, handoff, subagent phrasing) in trigger terms.

Suggestions

Add common user synonyms such as "agent 编排/orchestration", "handoff", or "子 agent 管理" to the trigger phrasing to broaden natural-keyword coverage.

Mention typical user-level symptom phrasings (e.g., "agents 互相覆盖文件", "结论越传越歪") verbatim to strengthen trigger matching against how users actually describe the problem.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete capabilities — "选择对等/管理者/去中心化协作拓扑", "决定上下文是否共享", "设计 Agent 间通信与共享文件系统", "诊断多 Agent 失败模式(并发冲突、错误级联、同质趋同、互相扯皮、循环失控)" — each naming specific actions and even enumerating failure modes, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: a concrete "what" (design/review multi-agent systems, choose topology, decide context sharing, design communication, diagnose failure modes) and an explicit "when" clause ("设计或评审多 Agent 系统、判断该用单 Agent 还是多 Agent 时使用") with concrete trigger scenarios, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say are present ("多 Agent 系统", "单 Agent 还是多 Agent", "协作拓扑", "并发冲突", "循环失控"), but common synonyms and variations such as agent orchestration/编排, handoff, or 子 agent/subagent management are missing, placing it just below the comprehensive-synonym anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche — multi-agent collaboration architecture design and failure diagnosis — with trigger phrasing that would not naturally fire for document-, code-, or single-agent-oriented skills, so conflict risk is minimal.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

bojieli/ai-agent-book

Path

skills/multi-agent-design/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.