agentleFS
GhostekenGhosteken/agent-harness/docs/agents.md

agent-harness

AGENTS.md2 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub

Specialist personas that play a single role with a single perspective. Each persona is a Markdown file consumed as a system prompt by your harness (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, etc.). Three layers, each with a distinct job: The user (or a slash command) is the orchestrator. Personas do not call other personas. Skills are mandatory hops inside a persona's workflow.

The file

We split this agents.md into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Every persona file ends with a "Composition" block stating where it fits.

    line 124
  2. Very specific:

    Create agents/<role>.md with the same frontmatter format used by existing personas.

    line 139
  3. Distinctive:

    Add a Composition block at the bottom (Invoke directly when / Invoke via / Do not invoke from another persona).

    line 141
  4. Distinctive:

    Add the persona to the table at the top of this file.

    line 142
  5. Very specific:

    If the persona enables a new orchestration pattern, document it in references/orchestration-patterns.md rather than inventing the pattern …

    line 143

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 40,246 AGENTS.md files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
agents.md

Agent Personas

Specialist personas that play a single role with a single perspective. Each persona is a Markdown file consumed as a system prompt by your harness (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, etc.).

PersonaRoleBest for
code-reviewerSenior Staff EngineerFive-axis review before merge
security-auditorSecurity EngineerVulnerability detection, OWASP-style audit
test-engineerQA EngineerTest strategy, coverage analysis, Prove-It pattern
web-performance-auditorWeb Performance EngineerCore Web Vitals audit, loading/rendering/network analysis
api-developerSenior API EngineerREST/GraphQL design, contract review, auth, versioning
db-architectSenior Database ArchitectSchema design, indexing, migrations, query optimisation
senior-devopsSenior DevOps EngineerCI/CD pipelines, IaC, containerisation, incident response
senior-frontend-engineerSenior Frontend EngineerReact/TS components, accessibility, Core Web Vitals
senior-cloud-architectSenior Cloud ArchitectMulti-region design, IAM, HA/DR, cost optimisation
senior-backend-engineerSenior Backend EngineerService architecture, async patterns, queues, caching
ai-ml-engineerAI/ML EngineerPrompt engineering, RAG, LLM evaluation, AI safety
senior-qa-engineerSenior QA EngineerFeature verification, fix validation, regression checks

How personas relate to skills and commands

Three layers, each with a distinct job:

LayerWhat it isExampleComposition role
SkillA workflow with steps and exit criteriacode-review-and-qualityThe how — invoked from inside a persona or command
PersonaA role with a perspective and an output formatcode-reviewerThe who — adopts a viewpoint, produces a report
CommandA user-facing entry point/review, /shipThe when — composes personas and skills

The user (or a slash command) is the orchestrator. Personas do not call other personas. Skills are mandatory hops inside a persona's workflow.

When to use each

Direct persona invocation

Pick this when you want one perspective on the current change and the user is in the loop.

  • "Review this PR" → invoke code-reviewer directly
  • "Are there security issues in auth.ts?" → invoke security-auditor directly
  • "What tests are missing for the checkout flow?" → invoke test-engineer directly
  • "Verify all the fixes are in place and working as expected" → invoke senior-qa-engineer directly
  • "QA this feature before we ship" → invoke senior-qa-engineer directly
  • "Check that nothing broke after the refactor" → invoke senior-qa-engineer directly
  • "Audit Core Web Vitals on the product page" → invoke web-performance-auditor directly
  • "Design this REST endpoint" → invoke api-developer directly
  • "Review this schema migration" → invoke db-architect directly
  • "Review this Dockerfile and pipeline" → invoke senior-devops directly
  • "Review this React component for accessibility" → invoke senior-frontend-engineer directly
  • "Review this cloud architecture for a multi-region service" → invoke senior-cloud-architect directly
  • "Review this background job consumer" → invoke senior-backend-engineer directly
  • "Review this RAG pipeline for safety issues" → invoke ai-ml-engineer directly

Slash command (single persona behind it)

Pick this when there's a repeatable workflow you'd otherwise re-explain every time.

  • /review → wraps code-reviewer with the project's review skill
  • /test → wraps test-engineer with TDD skill
  • /webperf → wraps web-performance-auditor for performance-focused audits on web apps

Slash command (orchestrator — fan-out)

Pick this only when independent investigations can run in parallel and produce reports that a single agent then merges.

  • /ship → fans out to code-reviewer + security-auditor + test-engineer in parallel, then synthesizes their reports into a go/no-go decision

This is the only orchestration pattern this repo endorses. See references/orchestration-patterns.md for the full pattern catalog and anti-patterns.

Decision matrix

Is the work a single perspective on a single artifact?
├── Yes → Direct persona invocation
└── No  → Are the sub-tasks independent (no shared mutable state, no ordering)?
         ├── Yes → Slash command with parallel fan-out (e.g. /ship)
         └── No  → Sequential slash commands run by the user (/spec → /plan → /build → /test → /review)

Worked example: valid orchestration

/ship is the canonical fan-out orchestrator in this repo:

/ship
  ├── (parallel) code-reviewer          → review report
  ├── (parallel) security-auditor       → audit report
  ├── (parallel) test-engineer          → coverage report
  ├── (parallel) api-developer          → contract review (when API changes present)
  └── (parallel) senior-backend-engineer → resilience review (when service changes present)
                  ↓
        merge phase (main agent)
                  ↓
        go/no-go decision + rollback plan

Why this works:

  • Each sub-agent operates on the same diff but produces a different perspective
  • They have no dependencies on each other → genuine parallelism, real wall-clock savings
  • Each runs in a fresh context window → main session stays uncluttered
  • The merge step is small and benefits from full context, so it stays in the main agent

Worked example: invalid orchestration (do not build this)

A meta-orchestrator persona whose job is "decide which other persona to call":

/work-on-pr → meta-orchestrator
                  ↓ (decides "this needs a review")
              code-reviewer
                  ↓ (returns)
              meta-orchestrator (paraphrases result)
                  ↓
              user

Why this fails:

  • Pure routing layer with no domain value
  • Adds two paraphrasing hops → information loss + 2× token cost
  • The user already knows they want a review; let them call /review directly
  • Replicates work that slash commands and AGENTS.md intent-mapping already do

Rules for personas

  1. A persona is a single role with a single output format. If you find yourself adding a second role, create a second persona.
  2. Personas do not invoke other personas. Composition is the job of slash commands or the user. On Claude Code this is also a hard platform constraint — "subagents cannot spawn other subagents" — so the rule is enforced for you.
  3. A persona may invoke skills (the how).
  4. Every persona file ends with a "Composition" block stating where it fits.

Claude Code interop

The personas in this repo are designed to work as Claude Code subagents and as Agent Teams teammates without modification:

  • As subagents: auto-discovered when this plugin is enabled (no path config needed). Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: code-reviewer (or security-auditor, test-engineer). /ship is the canonical example.
  • As Agent Teams teammates (experimental, requires CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1): reference the same persona name when spawning a teammate. The persona's body is appended to the teammate's system prompt as additional instructions (not a replacement), so your persona text sits on top of the team-coordination instructions the lead installs (SendMessage, task-list tools, etc.).

Subagents only report results back to the main agent. Agent Teams let teammates message each other directly. Use subagents when reports are enough; use Agent Teams when sub-agents need to challenge each other's findings (e.g. competing-hypothesis debugging). See references/orchestration-patterns.md for the full mapping.

Plugin agents do not support hooks, mcpServers, or permissionMode frontmatter — those fields are silently ignored. Avoid relying on them when authoring new personas here.

Adding a new persona

  1. Create agents/<role>.md with the same frontmatter format used by existing personas.
  2. Define the role, scope, output format, and rules.
  3. Add a Composition block at the bottom (Invoke directly when / Invoke via / Do not invoke from another persona).
  4. Add the persona to the table at the top of this file.
  5. If the persona enables a new orchestration pattern, document it in references/orchestration-patterns.md rather than inventing the pattern in the persona file itself.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.