Build AI agents that interact with computers like humans do - viewing screens, moving cursors, clicking buttons, and typing text. Covers Anthropic's Computer Use, OpenAI's Operator/CUA, and open-source alternatives. Critical focus on sandboxing, security, and handling the unique challenges of vision-based control. Use when: computer use, desktop automation agent, screen control AI, vision-based agent, GUI automation.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill computer-use-agents74
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong skill description that excels across all dimensions. It provides specific concrete actions, includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural trigger terms, and carves out a distinct niche around vision-based computer control agents. The description effectively balances technical specificity with user-friendly language.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'viewing screens, moving cursors, clicking buttons, and typing text.' Also names specific platforms (Anthropic's Computer Use, OpenAI's Operator/CUA) and mentions concrete concerns (sandboxing, security, vision-based control). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (build AI agents that interact with computers, covers specific platforms, focuses on sandboxing/security) AND when (explicit 'Use when:' clause with trigger terms). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'computer use', 'desktop automation agent', 'screen control AI', 'vision-based agent', 'GUI automation'. These cover multiple natural variations of how users might describe this need. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focusing specifically on vision-based computer control agents with distinct triggers like 'screen control AI' and 'GUI automation'. Unlikely to conflict with general coding or document skills due to specific focus on visual/desktop interaction. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a solid conceptual foundation for computer use agents with good coverage of sandboxing and the core perception-action loop. However, its utility is severely limited by truncated code examples that cannot be executed, and a corrupted Sharp Edges table that loses critical safety information. The content would benefit from complete, executable code and proper formatting of the warnings section.
Suggestions
Complete all truncated code examples - the ComputerUseAgent class, sandbox Python wrapper, and AnthropicComputerUse class all cut off mid-implementation, making them unusable
Fix the Sharp Edges table - the 'Issue' column contains only 'Issue' placeholder text instead of actual problems like 'Prompt injection attacks' or 'Dropdown manipulation failures'
Add explicit validation steps for testing agent behavior in sandbox before production deployment
Consider splitting detailed implementations (full Dockerfile, complete agent classes) into referenced files to improve progressive disclosure
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is moderately efficient but includes some unnecessary explanations (e.g., 'The fundamental architecture of computer use agents' preamble). Code examples are substantial but truncated, and some prose could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Code examples are provided but critically incomplete - all three major code blocks are truncated mid-function. The Dockerfile and docker-compose examples are more complete but the Python implementations cannot be executed as-is. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Perception-Reasoning-Action loop is clearly explained with numbered steps, and sandboxing requirements are well-enumerated. However, there's no explicit validation/verification workflow for testing agent behavior, and the Sharp Edges table is malformed with missing actual issues. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is organized into logical sections (Patterns, Sharp Edges) with 'When to use' callouts, but it's a monolithic document with no references to external files for detailed implementations. The Sharp Edges table appears corrupted/incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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 — 13 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 13 / 16 Passed | |
Table of Contents
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.