agentleFS
markoblogomarkoblogo/abvx-agent-skills/skills/agents-best-practices/SKILL.md

agents-best-practices

Skill16 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Design, audit, or improve agentic systems and agent harnesses. Use for agent MVP blueprints, tool design, permission models, planning and goal loops, context compaction, memory, skills, connectors, observability, evals, safety, and provider-neutral agent architecture.

3 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

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    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:

    Before recommending implementation, cover these surfaces:

    line 42
  2. Distinctive:

    Every tool call returns a structured result, including denials and errors.

    line 57
  3. Distinctive:

    Treat classifier-based permission helpers as advisory unless a deterministic policy layer can still deny unsafe actions.

    line 66
  4. Distinctive:

    When asked to design an agent, produce:

    line 70
  5. Distinctive:

    Avoid multi-agent systems until a single-agent harness has measurable failure cases that require decomposition.

    line 84

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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

Agents Best Practices

An agent harness is the control plane around a model. The model proposes; the harness validates, authorizes, executes, records, and returns observations.

Start With The Boundary

Identify:

  • domain and user;
  • autonomy level: answer-only, draft-only, approval-gated action, or autonomous within policy;
  • risk level: read-only, internal write, external communication, financial, legal, healthcare, security, destructive, or privileged;
  • state duration: single turn, session, resumable workflow, or long-running goal;
  • tool surface;
  • validation signal.

Minimal Harness Shape

task
  -> context builder
  -> model call
  -> proposed tool/action
  -> schema validation
  -> permission decision
  -> execution or approval pause
  -> structured observation
  -> state update
  -> finish or continue within budget

Harness Checklist

Before recommending implementation, cover these surfaces:

  • agentic loop: turn budget, stop rules, loop detection, checkpoint/resume;
  • tool registry: static vs dynamic tools, schema quality, denial/error shape, MCP boundaries;
  • context assembly: priority order, just-in-time loading, compaction, source attribution;
  • memory: session state vs durable memory, write policy, contradiction handling;
  • guardrails: trust boundaries, prompt-injection exposure, sandbox/network/filesystem policy;
  • permissions: read/write/send/delete/pay/deploy classes, approval gates, classifier-assisted routing only with deterministic backstops;
  • observability: event log, tool outcomes, user-visible state, no hidden-reasoning leakage;
  • evals: success fixtures, safety fixtures, eval noise budget, floor/ceiling checks;
  • managed-agent architecture: separate brain, hands, credentials, session state, and worker lifecycle when the agent becomes long-running.

Design Rules

  • Application code enforces safety; prompts only describe desired behavior.
  • Every tool call returns a structured result, including denials and errors.
  • Risky side effects require explicit policy and usually human approval.
  • Draft and commit/send/pay/delete are separate actions.
  • Tool schemas should be narrow, typed, validated, and auditable.
  • Context should be tight, source-aware, and loaded just in time.
  • Skills and connectors use progressive disclosure; do not expose every capability up front.
  • Long-running goals need budgets, checkpoints, resumable state, and a measurable done condition.
  • Observability records events and outcomes without exposing hidden reasoning.
  • Sandboxes and permission gates belong in the harness, not in the agent's self-restraint.
  • Treat classifier-based permission helpers as advisory unless a deterministic policy layer can still deny unsafe actions.

MVP Blueprint Output

When asked to design an agent, produce:

  • objective and MVP boundary;
  • autonomy and risk model;
  • core loop;
  • instruction architecture;
  • tool registry and permissions;
  • context, memory, retrieval, and compaction;
  • skills/connectors;
  • safety and approvals;
  • sandbox, scheduling, and managed-agent boundaries when relevant;
  • observability and evals;
  • minimal implementation path.

Avoid multi-agent systems until a single-agent harness has measurable failure cases that require decomposition.

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.