agentleFS
adymireadymire/CraftLayer/skills/ai-engineering/SKILL.md

ai-engineering

Skill0 starsChanged 3 days agoMITView on GitHub

Integrate AI capabilities with explicit model boundaries, evaluation, privacy controls, and observable failure behavior.

7 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 8

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use for model/API integration, prompt construction, structured generation, tool use, evaluation, or AI-backed product features.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not introduce a model where deterministic software solves the task more reliably, cheaply, or safely.

    line 15
  3. Distinctive:

    Treat model responses as untrusted input.

    line 31
  4. Distinctive:

    Add timeouts, cancellation, bounded retries, and clear partial/failure states.

    line 33
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not claim deterministic or verified output where generation is probabilistic.

    line 42
  6. Distinctive:

    Use human approval for consequential external or destructive actions.

    line 44
  7. Distinctive:

    No baseline evaluation or version tracking.

    line 56
  8. Distinctive:

    Test representative, adversarial, malformed, timeout, provider-failure, privacy, cost, and authorization cases.

    line 61

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “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
SKILL.md

AI Engineering

When to use

Use for model/API integration, prompt construction, structured generation, tool use, evaluation, or AI-backed product features.

When not to use

Do not introduce a model where deterministic software solves the task more reliably, cheaply, or safely.

Inputs and assumptions

Define user task, quality target, data classification, model/provider constraints, latency and cost budgets, fallback behavior, and human review needs.

Workflow

  1. Define measurable success and unacceptable failure cases.
  2. Minimize data sent to providers and document retention/processing assumptions.
  3. Version prompts and model configuration; validate structured output at runtime.
  4. Treat model responses as untrusted input; authorize tools independently of model intent.
  5. Add timeouts, cancellation, bounded retries, and clear partial/failure states.
  6. Build a representative evaluation set and inspect regressions before changing prompts or models.
  7. Monitor quality, latency, cost, and safety with privacy-aware logging.

Decision rules

  • A model must not grant itself permissions.
  • Do not claim deterministic or verified output where generation is probabilistic.
  • Use human approval for consequential external or destructive actions.
  • Separate model failure from application failure in user-facing reporting.

Example

Parse a generated response against a schema, then apply business validation and authorization before saving it; successful JSON parsing is not proof of correctness.

Common failures

  • Prompt-only security controls for tool access.
  • No baseline evaluation or version tracking.
  • Silent fallback to a different model with different behavior.

Validation

Test representative, adversarial, malformed, timeout, provider-failure, privacy, cost, and authorization cases; report evaluation limitations.

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.