Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

creating-custom-agents

Creates GitHub Copilot custom agents (`.agent.md`) for VS Code. Use when defining a specialized agent role, selecting a minimal toolset, referencing supporting skills, or shipping install-ready agent examples with clear boundaries and collaboration rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118 stars(GitHub 118 + cccskills 0)
Works withGitHub

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (4)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB
  • resources/custom-agent-quality-checklist.md1.3 KB
  • resources/custom-agent.example.agent.md1.6 KB
  • resources/custom-agent.template.agent.md1.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Creating Custom Agents

Use this skill when a reusable role needs its own identity instead of hiding inside a prompt or a skill. It helps create custom agents that are focused, tool-aware, and easy to extend without scope creep.

When to Use

Use this skill when the user asks for things like:

  • "create a custom agent for this workflow"
  • "design an agent with limited tools"
  • "turn this expert role into a .agent.md file"
  • "define how an orchestrator should delegate to specialists"
  • "fix an agent that is too broad or too verbose"

Typical scenarios:

  • creating a new single-purpose agent
  • building a specialist for a multi-agent workflow
  • tightening an existing agent's scope and tool access
  • preparing a reusable example agent for a shared repository

Outcome Standard

A strong custom agent contribution usually includes:

  • a crisp role and mission
  • a deliberate toolset rather than blanket access
  • clear guidance on when the agent should be used
  • boundaries that stop the agent from absorbing work better handled by prompts, skills, or instructions
  • an install-ready .agent.md file plus reference material

Agent Design Rules

  • Role first - define who the agent is and what it owns before writing any workflow guidance.
  • Minimal tools - only grant the tools the role genuinely needs.
  • Skills for procedure - reference skills for reusable workflows instead of stuffing the entire playbook into the agent.
  • Prompts for entrypoints - if users need a guided starting command, create a prompt file in addition to the agent.
  • Boundaries matter - explain what the agent should not do, especially when nearby agents overlap.

Workflow

Phase 0: Decide whether an agent is the right primitive

Choose an agent only when the work needs a persistent role, a specific tool profile, or a distinct collaboration pattern. If the need is only a reusable task starter, prefer a prompt. If the need is procedural knowledge, prefer a skill.

Phase 1: Study adjacent artifacts

Before drafting:

  • inspect similar agents, prompts, and skills already in the repository
  • identify the smallest role boundary that still feels useful
  • note what the agent should own directly versus delegate or reference

Phase 2: Define the agent contract

Clarify or infer:

  • the agent's mission
  • the main user requests it should handle
  • the tools it must have and the ones it should avoid
  • the output style or deliverables it should consistently produce
  • any collaboration or orchestration behavior

Phase 3: Draft the .agent.md file

Use the supporting files below while drafting:

  • ./resources/custom-agent.template.agent.md
  • ./resources/custom-agent.example.agent.md

A good first draft should cover:

  • frontmatter for name, description, model, and tools
  • a role section describing what the agent is responsible for
  • a short workflow or operating rhythm
  • constraints or anti-patterns
  • output expectations

Phase 4: Add the reference bundle

At minimum, provide:

  • the main .agent.md file
  • one example or template for reuse
  • a summary of why the chosen toolset and boundaries make sense

If the agent is part of a larger workflow, mention the prompts or skills it should work with.

Phase 5: Validate before handoff

Check the result against ./resources/custom-agent-quality-checklist.md.

Pay special attention to:

  • whether the description clearly signals when the agent should be used
  • whether the tools are minimal and intentional
  • whether the agent body defines identity and behavior instead of duplicating a skill
  • whether the output style is specific enough to be useful

Common Failure Modes

  • giving the agent a vague job like "help with everything"
  • granting too many tools out of convenience
  • embedding detailed workflow instructions that belong in a skill
  • copying repository instructions into the agent file
  • creating a new agent when a prompt or skill would have been enough

Resource Map

  • ./resources/custom-agent.template.agent.md - scaffold for a focused custom agent
  • ./resources/custom-agent.example.agent.md - worked example of a bounded specialist agent
  • ./resources/custom-agent-quality-checklist.md - final review checklist before shipping

Definition of Done

A task using this skill is complete when:

  • the role and scope are easy to explain in one short paragraph
  • the toolset matches the actual responsibilities
  • the file is install-ready and internally consistent
  • supporting template or example material exists for reuse
  • the agent passes the quality checklist without obvious overlap or confusion

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

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.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Defines, computes, and interprets test and quality metrics: pass rate, flake rate, suite duration, defect escape rate, time to detect, and coverage with its caveats. Use when building a QA dashboard, reporting suite health to stakeholders, comparing releases over time, or when a coverage percentage or a bug count is being treated as a measure of quality.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Analyzes diffs, changed files, hotfixes, and release candidates to identify where regression risk spreads and what must be retested first. Use when scoping retest after a change, reviewing QA impact for a pull request, or building a minimal confidence suite for release validation.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Writes and reviews API automation tests with Playwright Test, covering setup/teardown, assertions, data management, and hybrid API+UI flows. Use when creating backend API tests, contract checks, data-driven API coverage, API+UI hybrid workflows, or reviewing existing Playwright API suites.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Measures the risk that code shipped without anyone understanding it: a teach-back attestation on high-risk changes, a risk band from changed-code complexity, diff size and whether a human explanation accompanied it, and optional AI-authorship provenance. Findings stay advisory by design. Use when an AI-assisted codebase grows faster than the team reads it, when reviews are rubber-stamped, when nobody can explain a module that ships weekly, or when leadership asks how much of the code the team can actually maintain.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Produces an evidence-backed go/no-go recommendation: exit criteria status, open-defect risk profile, coverage against risk, environment parity, rollback readiness, and the residual risk stated plainly. Use when preparing a release sign-off, when someone asks whether a build is ready to ship, or when a decision to release is being made on impressions rather than evidence.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Records human verification - code review, exploratory sessions, UAT, accessibility passes, UX and observability reviews - as dated, attributed attestations in a register, so human-centric practices stay in the quality contract without pretending to be automated checks. Use when a strategy requires verification no tool can prove, when sign-off evidence is scattered across chats and tickets, when a gap matrix needs to distinguish "attested" from "passed", or when an audit asks who verified what and when.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

See all skills by jaktestowac

Report a problem with this skill