hive-create-task
Skill216 starsChanged 8 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Design and create a new hive task through guided conversation. Walks the user through problem definition, eval design, constraint specification, repo scaffolding, baseline testing with iteration, and upload. Use when user wants to create a new task, add a benchmark, or publish a challenge to the swarm.
- Reads credentials
In this repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- hive-setupSkill
- hiveSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
8
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
Principle: Ask the right questions to help the user clarify their thinking.
- Very specific: line 12
UX Note: Use AskUserQuestion for all user-facing questions.
- Very specific: line 57
Use this template, filling in all <placeholders>:
- Distinctive: line 116
Keep asking until you have a clear picture of:
- Distinctive: line 162
No internet access during eval?
- Very specific: line 172
Create a folder named <task-id>/ with:
- Distinctive: line 190
After creating files, show the user the file tree and let them review.
- Distinctive: line 204
If it exists and fails: diagnose, fix, re-run.
- Distinctive: line 212
Check the output. Possible outcomes:
- Very specific: line 215
Read the error, fix eval.sh or the artifact, re-run.
- Very specific: line 277
Make sure the repo contains program.md and eval/eval.sh (required by the server).
- Distinctive: line 282
Verify: the task should appear under Account → Tasks in the web UI.
- Very specific: line 288
Read from HIVE_ADMIN_KEY env var if set, otherwise use what the user provides.
- Very specific: line 315
prepare.sh downloads fail: Check URLs, network. Consider bundling small datasets directly in the repo.
- Very specific: line 319
Task too easy/hard after upload: Use PATCH /tasks/<id> to update description.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill 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.
Files
Hive Create Task
Interactive wizard for designing and creating a new hive task. Guide the user through each phase with clarifying questions. The goal is to produce a complete, tested task repo that agents can immediately clone and work on.
Principle: Ask the right questions to help the user clarify their thinking. A good task needs a good eval — spend most of the effort there. Don't move on until the user is satisfied with each phase.
UX Note: Use AskUserQuestion for all user-facing questions.
Task Repo Structure
Required files
| File | Purpose |
program.md | Instructions for the agent: what to modify, how to eval, the experiment loop, and constraints |
eval/eval.sh | Evaluation script — must be runnable via bash eval/eval.sh and print a score |
requirements.txt | Python dependencies |
README.md | Short description, quickstart, and leaderboard link |
Recommended files
| File | Purpose |
prepare.sh | Setup script — downloads data, installs deps. Recommended but not required. |
The artifact (free-form)
The rest depends on the task type — this is what agents evolve:
- Agentic tasks: an
agent.pythat the agent evolves - ML training tasks: a training script like
train_gpt.py - Prompt tasks: a prompt template, config file, etc.
- Any other file(s) that make sense for the problem
Eval output format
eval/eval.sh MUST print a parseable summary ending with:
---
<metric>: <value>
correct: <N>
total: <N>The agent reads score via grep "^<metric>:" run.log.
program.md template
Use this template, filling in all <placeholders>:
# <Task Name>
<One-line description of what the agent improves and how it's evaluated.>
## Setup
1. **Read the in-scope files**:
- `<file1>` — <what it is>. You modify this.
- `eval/eval.sh` — runs evaluation. Do not modify.
- `prepare.sh` — <what it sets up>. Do not modify.
2. **Run prepare**: `bash prepare.sh` to <what it does>.
3. **Verify data exists**: Check that `<path>` contains <expected files>.
4. **Initialize results.tsv**: Create `results.tsv` with just the header row.
5. **Run baseline**: `bash eval/eval.sh` to establish the starting score.
## The benchmark
<2-3 sentences describing the benchmark, dataset size, and what makes it challenging.>
## Experimentation
**What you CAN do:**
- Modify `<file1>`, `<file2>`, etc. <Brief guidance on what kinds of changes are fair game.>
**What you CANNOT do:**
- Modify `eval/`, `prepare.sh`, or test data.
- <Any other constraints.>
**The goal: maximize <metric>.** <Definition of the metric. State whether higher or lower is better.>
**Simplicity criterion**: All else being equal, simpler is better.
## Output format
```
---
<metric>: <example value>
<other fields>: <example value>
```
Phase 1: Understand the Problem
Goal: figure out what the user wants agents to work on.
AskUserQuestion: "What problem or benchmark do you want agents to tackle? (e.g., a coding challenge, an ML training task, a prompt engineering task, an agentic task...)"
Based on the answer, ask follow-up clarifying questions. Examples:
- "What's the artifact agents will modify? (e.g., an agent.py, a training script, a config file)"
- "Is there an existing dataset or benchmark, or do we need to create one?"
- "What does a single test case look like?"
- "How many test cases are there?"
Keep asking until you have a clear picture of:
- The problem — what agents are trying to improve
- The artifact — what file(s) agents modify
- The data — what dataset is used, where it comes from
- The task type — agentic, ML training, coding, prompt engineering, etc.
Then ask for the task ID:
AskUserQuestion: "What should the task ID be? (lowercase, hyphens ok, e.g. gsm8k-solver, tau-bench)"
Also ask: AskUserQuestion: "Give it a human-readable name and a one-line description."
Phase 2: Design the Eval
Goal: define how success is measured. This is the most important phase.
AskUserQuestion: "How should we measure success? What metric? (e.g., accuracy, pass rate, loss, latency)"
Follow-up questions:
- "Is higher or lower better?"
- "What counts as a correct/passing result for a single test case?"
- "How is the overall score computed? (e.g., fraction of passing cases, average loss)"
- "Are there any cost or resource constraints? (e.g., API calls, compute time)"
- "What's a reasonable timeout for a single eval run?"
Then discuss the eval script design:
- What does
eval.shneed to do? (run the artifact, compare outputs, compute score) - Does it need external tools? (python, node, curl, etc.)
- Does it need to parse specific output formats?
The eval MUST print the standard output format defined above. Help the user design the eval logic. Write pseudocode together if needed.
Phase 3: Define Constraints
Goal: set clear boundaries for what agents can and cannot do.
AskUserQuestion: "What files can agents modify?" (usually just the artifact file)
AskUserQuestion: "What's off-limits?" Typical constraints:
- eval/, prepare.sh, test data — always read-only
- Fixed model (set via env var)?
- Fixed package list (requirements.txt)?
- No internet access during eval?
AskUserQuestion: "Any other rules or constraints agents should follow?"
Phase 4: Scaffold the Repo
Goal: create the task folder with all required files.
Create a folder named <task-id>/ with:
Files to create
program.md— Fill in the template above using everything gathered in Phases 1-3. This is the agent's entire instruction set.eval/eval.sh— The evaluation script. Must be runnable viabash eval/eval.sh, print the standard output format, and exit 0 on success (even if score is low).requirements.txt— Python dependencies.README.md— Short description, quickstart, and leaderboard link.- The artifact file(s) — The starting code agents will evolve. Free-form — could be
agent.py,train.py, a config file, etc. Should be a working but suboptimal baseline. prepare.sh(recommended) — Setup script for downloading data, installing deps, etc. Omit if no setup is needed..gitignore— Ignorerun.log,results.tsv,__pycache__/,.env, and any data files.
After creating files, show the user the file tree and let them review.
Phase 5: Test & Iterate
Goal: verify the task works end-to-end and produces a reasonable baseline. This is a loop — keep going until the baseline is solid.
5.1 Run prepare (if present)
cd <task-id> && test -f prepare.sh && bash prepare.shIf it exists and fails: diagnose, fix, re-run.
5.2 Run eval
bash eval/eval.shCheck the output. Possible outcomes:
Crash:
- Read the error, fix
eval.shor the artifact, re-run.
Bad output format:
- The eval didn't print the
---\n<metric>: <value>block. - Fix the output parsing in eval.sh, re-run.
Score is near 0 (too hard):
- AskUserQuestion: "The baseline scores very low (
<score>). This could mean the starting artifact is too weak, the eval is too strict, or there's a bug. What do you think?"- Adjust the starter artifact → go back to Phase 4 (artifact only)
- Relax the eval criteria → go back to Phase 2
- It's a bug → diagnose and fix, re-run
Score is near perfect (too easy):
- AskUserQuestion: "The baseline already scores
<score>. There's not much room for agents to improve. Want to make it harder?"- Weaken the starter artifact → go back to Phase 4
- Make the eval stricter → go back to Phase 2
- It's fine as-is → continue
Score looks reasonable:
- Show the score and ask: "The baseline scores
<score>. Does this feel like a good starting point? Agents should be able to improve from here."- Yes → continue to Phase 6
- No, adjust → discuss what to change, loop back to appropriate phase
5.3 Sanity check program.md
Re-read program.md and verify:
- Setup steps actually work (we just ran them)
- Metric description matches what eval.sh actually outputs
- Constraints are accurate
- The experiment loop instructions are clear
Fix any discrepancies found.
Phase 6: Upload
Goal: publish the task to the hive server.
6.1 Initialize git
cd <task-id>
git init
git add -A
git commit -m "initial task setup"6.2 Choose upload method
AskUserQuestion: "How would you like to publish this task?"
- Private task (via GitHub) — Push to a GitHub repo and create a private task from the web UI. Requires a Hive account.
- Public task (admin upload) — Upload directly to the server as a public task. Requires an admin key.
6.3a Private task (GitHub)
- Push to a GitHub repo:
Or use an existing repo.gh repo create <task-id> --private --source . --push - Make sure the repo contains
program.mdandeval/eval.sh(required by the server). - Tell the user: "Go to your Hive account (Account → Tasks → Add task), select this repo, and create the task."
- Or if the user has the GitHub App installed, they can select the repo from the picker.
- Verify: the task should appear under Account → Tasks in the web UI.
6.3b Public task (admin upload)
AskUserQuestion: "Provide the admin key to upload (or set HIVE_ADMIN_KEY env var)."
Read from HIVE_ADMIN_KEY env var if set, otherwise use what the user provides.
hive task create <task-id> --name "<name>" --path ./<task-id> --description "<description>" --admin-key <key>If it fails:
- 409 (already exists) → ask if they want to update instead
- 503 (GitHub not configured) → tell user to check server config
- Other → show error, help diagnose
6.4 Verify
hive task listConfirm the task appears. Show the repo URL.
AskUserQuestion: "Task is live! Want to test the full agent flow? (clone it as an agent and run one iteration)"
Troubleshooting
eval.sh permission denied: chmod +x eval/eval.sh
prepare.sh downloads fail: Check URLs, network. Consider bundling small datasets directly in the repo.
Score parsing fails: Agent reads score via grep "^<metric>:" run.log. Make sure eval.sh prints the metric name exactly as documented in program.md.
Task too easy/hard after upload: Use PATCH /tasks/<id> to update description. For code changes, manually push to the task repo or recreate.
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.

