accessibility
FreeEnsure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
The Agent Tool Contract — 5 principles for designing tools agents call reliably: predictable signature, rich errors, token-efficient output, idempotency, graceful degradation. Includes anti-pattern table with 8 common mistakes.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
The Agent Tool Contract — 5 principles for designing tools that agents call reliably.
Tools must have typed, named parameters with clear required/optional distinction. No positional ambiguity.
Good:
// Clear, named, typed
function searchCode({ query, limit = 20, type = 'semantic' }) { ... }
Bad:
// Positional, ambiguous
function searchCode(q, n, t) { ... }
Errors must include: error code (machine-readable), message (human-readable), context (debugging data).
Good:
throw {
code: 'FILE_NOT_FOUND',
message: `File not found: ${path}`,
context: { path, cwd: process.cwd() },
};
Bad:
throw new Error('not found'); // No context for agent to act on
Tools return structured minimal data. No prose explanations, no redundant wrapping, no verbose status messages. Agents format output themselves.
Good:
return { files: ['a.js', 'b.js'], total: 2 };
Bad:
return { status: 'success', message: 'Found 2 files successfully', data: { files: [...], metadata: {...} } };
Rule of thumb: If the output contains prose an agent would re-read to extract facts, it's too verbose.
Tools must be safe to retry. Running a tool twice should produce the same result as running it once.
Good:
// Upsert instead of insert
db.upsert({ id, ...data });
// mkdir -p instead of mkdir
fs.mkdirSync(path, { recursive: true });
Bad:
// Fails on retry
db.insert({ id, ...data }); // duplicate key error
fs.mkdirSync(path); // EEXIST error
Partial success > hard failure. Return what succeeded with a clear indication of what didn't.
Good:
return {
succeeded: ['file1.js', 'file2.js'],
failed: [{ file: 'file3.js', reason: 'PERMISSION_DENIED' }],
partial: true,
};
Bad:
// One file fails -> entire batch throws
throw new Error('Failed to process file3.js');
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Verbose status wrapping | Wastes tokens; agent re-parses to extract data | Return data directly |
| Positional args | Ambiguous; breaks on refactor | Named params with types |
| Swallowed exceptions | Agent thinks success; work is lost | Always surface errors explicitly |
| Non-idempotent mutations | Retry causes duplicate data or errors | Upsert semantics; check-then-set |
| Hard failures on partial input | One bad item breaks entire batch | Return partial results |
| Side-effect-heavy reads | Read tools that trigger writes confuse agents | Separate reads from writes |
| String error messages only | Agent can't programmatically handle errors | Include machine-readable error codes |
| Untyped return shape | Agent can't reliably destructure output | Document and enforce return schema |
Before shipping any tool:
[ ] Parameters are named (not positional)
[ ] Required vs optional params are explicit
[ ] All error paths return { code, message, context }
[ ] Output contains no prose — only structured data
[ ] Tool is idempotent (safe to retry)
[ ] Partial failure returns partial results, not throws
[ ] Return shape is documented in JSDoc or TypeScript types
[ ] Token budget for output estimated (< 500 tokens for standard tools)
{ code, message, context } to handle errors programmatically.mkdir -p patterns.{ succeeded, failed, partial: true }.tool-creator skill when designing new toolscode-reviewer agent during tool PRsdynamic-api-integration skill (consuming external tools)agent-evaluation skill (evaluating tool output quality)Before starting:
Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
After completing:
.claude/context/memory/learnings.md.claude/context/memory/issues.md.claude/context/memory/decisions.mdASSUME INTERRUPTION: If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.
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.
Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.