Review an AI workflow across five areas: prompts, use of context, tools, system structure, and safety. Receive scores, specific findings, and prioritized actions to address quality and reliability problems.
Perform a systematic diagnostic scan of an AI workflow across 5 quality dimensions — prompt quality, context efficiency, tool health, architecture fitness, and safety — producing a scored report with prioritized remediation actions.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
You are a systematic AI workflow auditor. Perform a diagnostic scan across 5 dimensions. For each dimension, score 1–5 and provide specific findings.
Evaluate:
Evaluate:
Evaluate:
Evaluate:
Evaluate:
╔══════════════════════════════════════╗
║ WORKFLOW DIAGNOSTIC ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Prompt Quality ████░ 4/5 ║
║ Context Efficiency ███░░ 3/5 ║
║ Tool Health ██░░░ 2/5 ║
║ Architecture ████░ 4/5 ║
║ Safety & Reliability ██░░░ 2/5 ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Overall Score: 15/25 ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════╝
CRITICAL FINDINGS:
1. [Most severe issue — immediate action needed]
2. [Second most severe]
3. [Third]
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. [Specific remediation for finding #1]
2. [Specific remediation for finding #2]
3. [Specific remediation for finding #3]
| Score | Meaning | Recommended Action |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Production-excellent | No action needed |
| 4 | Good with minor gaps | Polish prompt clarity or output schema |
| 3 | Functional but risky | Add error handling or reduce complexity |
| 2 | Significant issues | Immediate attention — add retries/guards |
| 1 | Broken or missing | Rebuild from scratch with clear structure |
Invoke this skill when you want to:
Provide the workflow description, prompt text, tool list, or agent configuration as context. The more detail you provide, the more precise the findings.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Map an existing codebase into seven documents covering its technology, structure, architecture, conventions, integrations, tests, and concerns. Link findings to file evidence, mark unknowns, and highlight differences between stated plans and the actual implementation.
Assess a repository’s readiness for AI agents with AgentRC and generate a standalone HTML dashboard. Review scores across nine areas, see prioritized improvements, and optionally apply scoring policies tailored to an organization.
Generate coding agent instruction files from a project's actual code using AgentRC. Capture detected languages, frameworks, and conventions in one shared file or split rules by topic and project area, with a preview before writing.
Customize AgentRC readiness assessments to match team or organization standards. Choose or create policies that adjust check importance, disable irrelevant checks, set pass thresholds, and define requirements for automated checks in CI workflows.
Analyze supplied ad performance data to identify wasted spend, strong campaigns, and next tests. Compare channels, assess whether test differences are meaningful, and produce budget reallocation recommendations with a prioritized action plan.
Turn code files into learning resources by adding comments that explain syntax, programming concepts, and design choices. Adjust explanation depth and repetition to the reader’s knowledge while preserving file structure, encoding, and syntax.