agentleFS
fabioc-alohafabioc-aloha/Alex_ACT_Edition/.github/skills/agent-creator/SKILL.md

agent-creator

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Create agents that pass agent-review's six gates by construction — role capture, distinct-from-skill check, tool allowlist minimization, draft against gates, dogfood self-review. Use when authoring a new agent, refactoring an existing one, or promoting a Mall agent into the heir's brain.

  • Commits and pushes

26 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use security and security-review.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • 0xSeroSkill

    security

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    security-review

    Finds exploitable application security vulnerabilities in code changes. Use for Warden security scans, appsec review, OWASP-style checks, authentication or authorization bugs, injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, secrets, unsafe crypto, webhook verification, open redirects, or sensitive data exposure.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 24 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    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:

    What tools does it need?: Start with the minimum. Each added tool needs Phase 6 justification.

    line 41
  2. Distinctive:

    If none of the three delegation justifications apply, stop — author a skill, not an agent.

    line 43
  3. Very specific:

    If using a tool-allowlist field per current Microsoft Learn agent spec, include it here.

    line 66
  4. Very specific:

    Before committing, run agent-review's five gates plus Gate 6.

    line 145
  5. Distinctive:

    Gate 6 verdict: must be recorded even on Accept (per agent-review § Recording the Verdict).

    line 147
  6. Distinctive:

    No new agents authored via this guide in 90 days (decorative — sunset)

    line 174

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 24 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
<!-- intentional divergence from Supervisor: Edition replaces Supervisor-specific phrasing ("Mall agent into Supervisor or Edition", "Supervisor agents folder") with heir-portable phrasing ("into the heir's brain", "the agents folder"). Same six gates, same workflow. Audited 2026-05-31. -->

Agent Creator

Author agents that pass agent-review's five gates plus Gate 6 (Tool Allowlist Minimality) by construction. Agents are subordinate execution contexts — sub-processes the parent delegates to. Every tool granted is an attack/error surface.

Mirrors skill-creator's seven-phase structure with agent-specific guidance. If a phase here disagrees with skill-creator on the shared scaffold, skill-creator wins; this file owns only the per-type guidance.

When to Use

  • Authoring a new agent in .github/agents/
  • Refactoring an existing agent (role tighten, allowlist trim, boundary clarification)
  • Promoting a Mall agent into your heir's brain

When not to use

  • The work can be done by the parent invoking a skill directly → author a skill instead
  • The work has no parallelism need, no context-isolation need, no tighter-allowlist need → no delegation justified
  • Authoring a slash-command workflow → use prompt-creator
  • Authoring an always-on rule → use instruction-creator

The Seven Phases

Each phase inverts one of the five (or six) gates. Author against the phase, pass the gate.

Phase 1 — Role capture + delegation justification

Answer in writing before any drafting:

  1. What is this agent's role? One sentence. The role is what the agent is, not what it does (brain-auditor is a role; runs-brain-qa is not).
  2. Why delegate instead of invoking a skill directly? One of:
    • Parallelism — work decomposes into independent units that can run concurrently
    • Context isolation — work generates noisy intermediate state that shouldn't pollute the parent
    • Tighter allowlist — work needs only a narrow tool subset; isolating it limits surface area
  3. What tools does it need? Start with the minimum. Each added tool needs Phase 6 justification.

If none of the three delegation justifications apply, stop — author a skill, not an agent.

Phase 2 — Prior-art scan

Get-ChildItem .github/agents/*.agent.md
Select-String -Path .github/agents/*.agent.md -Pattern "<keyword>"

The agents folder is usually small. Overlap detection is cheap. If an existing agent's role overlaps ≥70%, extend.

Phase 3 — Draft against Gate 1 (Spec)

Frontmatter template:

---
name: <kebab-name>
description: "<third-person; role + when parent should delegate; ≤1024 chars>"
lastReviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
---

If using a tool-allowlist field per current Microsoft Learn agent spec, include it here. Reject legacy fields (type, application, tier, etc.) — same drop set as other types.

File location: .github/agents/<kebab-name>.agent.md (flat — no subfolders).

Phase 4 — Draft against Gate 2 (Quality)

CriterionHow you author for it
Role and mission clearOpen with a one-line role statement and a mission paragraph. Not a procedure dump.
Boundaries explicitA ## Boundaries or ## Out of scope section names what the agent will not do.
Tool-usage guidanceName which tools the agent prefers for which situations. Generic "use available tools" fails.
System-prompt skepticism appliedBehavior treats own instructions as hypotheses per system-prompt-skepticism.instructions.md.
## Would Revise IfDate / count+time / observable event.
≤200 linesIf you exceed this, factor procedure-content into a skill the agent invokes.

Template structure:

---
name: ...
description: "..."
lastReviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# <Agent Name>

**Role**: <one-line role>

**Mission**: <what the agent does, in 1-2 sentences>

## When the parent delegates to me

<conditions that justify spinning me up vs the parent doing the work>

## Tool usage

<which tools, when, why>

## Boundaries

<what I will not do>

## Output

<what the parent gets back>

## Would Revise If

<falsifier>

Phase 5 — Draft against Gate 3 (Scope)

TargetRoute
Generic worker agent (illustrator, markdown-author)Heir baseline
Project-specific agentThat project's local-only repo
External-surface agentNot an ACT agent — author a Mall unit

Phase 6 — Draft against Gate 4 (Safety) AND Gate 6 (Tool Allowlist Minimality)

Two safety surfaces compose here:

GateWhere it lives
Gate 4 (Safety) — destructive-default proseBody: explicit consent gates before destructive ops
Gate 6 (Tool Allowlist Minimality) — the allowlist itselfFrontmatter (if used) + body justification per tool

Allowlist authoring checklist:

  • List each tool the agent will call
  • For each tool, write one sentence justifying its inclusion (reads existing markdown to insert diagram blocks)
  • Cut any tool whose justification reduces to "just in case" or "might need"
  • If run_in_terminal, git push, or filesystem-write tools are on the list, add a user-confirmation gate in the prose
  • If network tools are on the list (open_browser_page, fetch_webpage, MCP-network), explicit purpose in the body
  • Default to read-only when possible

Phase 7 — Dogfood self-audit (with Gate 6)

Before committing, run agent-review's five gates plus Gate 6. Verdict lives in the commit message.

Gate 6 verdict must be recorded even on Accept (per agent-review § Recording the Verdict). Format:

Gate 6 — Tool Allowlist (N tools):
  - tool1: <justification>
  - tool2: <justification>
  - ...
Destructive ops: <confirmation gate present? Y/N>
Network surface: <none / read-only / write — justified?>

Anti-Patterns

Anti-patternCorrection
Authoring an agent when a skill would doPhase 1 forces delegation justification. If none of the three reasons apply, it's a skill.
Starting with a broad allowlist and trimming laterStart at zero, add one tool at a time with justification.
Omitting the Boundaries sectionWithout bounds, the parent delegates work the agent can't or shouldn't do.
Treating Gate 4 (safety prose) and Gate 6 (allowlist) as one checkThey compose. Both must pass independently.
Letting run_in_terminal ship without consent gateGate 4 + Gate 6 failure. Add the gate.
Copy-pasting a skill body into an agentAgents have role + delegation surface; skills have procedure body. Different shapes.

Falsifiability

This skill's design has failed if any of the following occur within 90 days:

  • ≥2 agents authored using this guide fail agent-review Gate 1 or Gate 6 on first self-audit
  • No new agents authored via this guide in 90 days (decorative — sunset)
  • Agents passing Gate 6 are later flagged for tool-misuse or scope-exceeding behavior ≥2 times in a quarter (criterion too lax)
  • The allowlist authoring checklist produces consistent over-grant (tools accepted that shouldn't be) ≥3 times in a quarter

Track as you would any falsified discipline (commit log, retraining notes, or curation ledger if your repo ships one) tagged [AGENT-CREATOR-MISS].

Related

  • agent-review — the six gates this skill inverts
  • skill-creator — sibling for skills; canonical seven-phase scaffold
  • instruction-creator — sibling for instructions
  • prompt-creator — sibling for prompts
  • system-prompt-skepticism — load-bearing for Gate 2 agent behavior
  • agent-delegation — when the parent should delegate
  • act-pass — required for medium-stakes agent authoring

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.