CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

autonomous-agent-patterns

Design patterns for building autonomous coding agents, inspired by [Cline](https://github.com/cline/cline) and [OpenAI Codex](https://github.com/openai/codex).

26

Quality

18%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/autonomous-agent-patterns/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

14%Scale 1-3

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

This skill is an extensive catalog of autonomous agent design patterns that suffers from severe verbosity—it reads more like a tutorial or reference manual than a concise skill file. Most of the code implements patterns Claude already understands (file I/O, subprocess, class hierarchies, Playwright), and the content lacks a coherent workflow tying the patterns together. The monolithic structure with no bundle files means everything is dumped into a single massive document with no progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Reduce content to ~100 lines by removing code Claude already knows (basic file operations, subprocess, Playwright boilerplate) and focusing on the non-obvious design decisions and constraints specific to agent building.

Add a clear sequential workflow: 'Step 1: Define tools → Step 2: Implement permission layer → Step 3: Build agent loop → Step 4: Validate with test task → Step 5: Add sandboxing' with explicit validation checkpoints at each stage.

Split into bundle files: keep SKILL.md as a concise overview (~50 lines) with references to TOOLS.md, PERMISSIONS.md, BROWSER.md, and MCP.md for detailed patterns.

Remove explanatory comments that state the obvious (e.g., '# Think: Get LLM response', 'Use different models for different purposes') and trust Claude to understand the code structure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extremely verbose at ~600+ lines. Much of this is reference-level code that Claude already knows how to write (basic file I/O, subprocess calls, Playwright usage, class hierarchies). The multi-model architecture section explains obvious concepts like 'use different models for different purposes.' The browser automation and context management sections are essentially full library implementations that don't teach Claude anything new.

1 / 3

Actionability

The code examples are fairly concrete and mostly executable, but they are design patterns/templates rather than copy-paste-ready solutions. Key imports are missing (json, os, shlex, subprocess, Any, ToolResult class definition), and the code relies on undefined types and frameworks (ToolResult, playwright imports, html_to_markdown). The patterns describe 'how to build' rather than giving directly usable implementations.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

There is no clear multi-step workflow for actually building an agent. The content presents isolated patterns without sequencing them into a coherent build process. There are no validation checkpoints, no 'do this then verify that' steps. The checklist at the end is generic and not tied to specific verification actions. For a skill involving code generation and execution (destructive operations), the lack of validation/feedback loops is a significant gap.

1 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a monolithic wall of text with no bundle files to reference. All ~600 lines are inline with no separation of concerns. The browser automation, MCP integration, context management, and permission patterns could each be separate files. External links at the bottom are to third-party resources, not structured supporting documents within the skill bundle.

1 / 3

Total

5

/

12

Passed

Description

22%Scale 1-3

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 too vague and abstract, reading more like a topic label than an actionable skill description. It lacks concrete actions the skill performs and entirely omits explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'). The references to Cline and OpenAI Codex add some distinctiveness but don't compensate for the missing specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause specifying triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about building AI coding agents, agentic tool-use loops, or architectures similar to Cline or Codex.'

List specific concrete actions the skill covers, e.g., 'Provides patterns for tool-use loops, sandboxed code execution, file editing strategies, error recovery, and agent orchestration.'

Include natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'AI agent', 'agentic workflow', 'code agent architecture', 'tool loop', and 'autonomous coding'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description mentions 'design patterns for building autonomous coding agents' but does not list any concrete actions. It references inspirations (Cline, OpenAI Codex) but doesn't specify what the skill actually does—no verbs like 'generates', 'scaffolds', 'implements' are present.

1 / 3

Completeness

The description partially addresses 'what' (design patterns for coding agents) but is vague, and there is no 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 2, and the weak 'what' brings it to 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some relevant keywords like 'autonomous coding agents', 'design patterns', 'Cline', and 'OpenAI Codex' that a user might mention. However, it misses common variations like 'AI agent', 'code agent', 'agentic workflow', 'tool use loop', or 'agent architecture'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The mention of 'autonomous coding agents' and specific projects (Cline, OpenAI Codex) provides some distinctiveness, but 'design patterns' is broad enough to overlap with general software architecture or coding pattern skills.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (770 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Repository
popey/claude-code-skills
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.