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
- Arcanea-Labs/Starlight-Intelligence-Systemtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuosotheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- coroboros/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 29, 2026
- 10CG/aria-plugintheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- Ronnasayd/aipptheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- AllanSantos-DV/skill-kittheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
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.
0xSeroSkillsecurity
Also in 4 projects that use this
SentrySkillsecurity-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
Other versions26 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 26
- OpenHands/extensions★ 167same name
- 9thLevelSoftware/legion★ 76same name
- DGouron/review-flow★ 42same name
- monaccode/astromesh★ 39same name
- krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso★ 36same name
- different-ai/openwork-hub★ 35same name
- HashLips/agent-skills★ 29same name
- mhylle/claude-skills-collection★ 20same name
- WalletConnect/skills★ 14same name
- Arcanea-Labs/Starlight-Intelligence-System★ 10same name
16 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- agent-reviewSkill
- ai-memory-setupSkill
- alex-banner-generationSkill
- anti-hallucinationSkill
- brain-auditSkill
- browser-toolsSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- creative-writingSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- deep-reviewSkill
- doc-hygieneSkill
- docx-to-mdSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- greeting-checkinSkill
- html-to-mdSkill
- humanizerSkill
- instruction-creatorSkill
- instruction-reviewSkill
- lint-clean-markdownSkill
- markdown-mermaidSkill
- markdown-sanitization-chainSkill
- md-to-emlSkill
- md-to-htmlSkill
- md-to-txtSkill
- md-to-wordSkill
- meditationSkill
- planSkill
- problem-framing-auditSkill
- prompt-creatorSkill
- prompt-reviewSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- skill-reviewSkill
- spikeSkill
- status-reportingSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 41
What tools does it need?: Start with the minimum. Each added tool needs Phase 6 justification.
- Distinctive: line 43
If none of the three delegation justifications apply, stop — author a skill, not an agent.
- Very specific: line 66
If using a tool-allowlist field per current Microsoft Learn agent spec, include it here.
- Very specific: line 145
Before committing, run agent-review's five gates plus Gate 6.
- Distinctive: line 147
Gate 6 verdict: must be recorded even on Accept (per agent-review § Recording the Verdict).
- Distinctive: line 174
No new agents authored via this guide in 90 days (decorative — sunset)
“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.
Files
<!-- 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:
- What is this agent's role? One sentence. The role is what the agent is, not what it does (
brain-auditoris a role;runs-brain-qais not). - 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
- 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)
| Criterion | How you author for it |
| Role and mission clear | Open with a one-line role statement and a mission paragraph. Not a procedure dump. |
| Boundaries explicit | A ## Boundaries or ## Out of scope section names what the agent will not do. |
| Tool-usage guidance | Name which tools the agent prefers for which situations. Generic "use available tools" fails. |
| System-prompt skepticism applied | Behavior treats own instructions as hypotheses per system-prompt-skepticism.instructions.md. |
## Would Revise If | Date / count+time / observable event. |
| ≤200 lines | If 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)
| Target | Route |
| Generic worker agent (illustrator, markdown-author) | Heir baseline |
| Project-specific agent | That project's local-only repo |
| External-surface agent | Not 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:
| Gate | Where it lives |
| Gate 4 (Safety) — destructive-default prose | Body: explicit consent gates before destructive ops |
| Gate 6 (Tool Allowlist Minimality) — the allowlist itself | Frontmatter (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-pattern | Correction |
| Authoring an agent when a skill would do | Phase 1 forces delegation justification. If none of the three reasons apply, it's a skill. |
| Starting with a broad allowlist and trimming later | Start at zero, add one tool at a time with justification. |
| Omitting the Boundaries section | Without bounds, the parent delegates work the agent can't or shouldn't do. |
| Treating Gate 4 (safety prose) and Gate 6 (allowlist) as one check | They compose. Both must pass independently. |
Letting run_in_terminal ship without consent gate | Gate 4 + Gate 6 failure. Add the gate. |
| Copy-pasting a skill body into an agent | Agents 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-reviewGate 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
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
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.

