本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

ce-agent-native-audit

Run comprehensive agent-native architecture review with scored principles

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

JesusFilm/coreスター 25(GitHub 25 + cccskills 0)

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md8.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Agent-Native Architecture Audit

Conduct a comprehensive review of the codebase against agent-native architecture principles, launching parallel sub-agents for each principle and producing a scored report.

Core Principles to Audit

  1. Action Parity - "Whatever the user can do, the agent can do"
  2. Tools as Primitives - "Tools provide capability, not behavior"
  3. Context Injection - "System prompt includes dynamic context about app state"
  4. Shared Workspace - "Agent and user work in the same data space"
  5. CRUD Completeness - "Every entity has full CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete)"
  6. UI Integration - "Agent actions immediately reflected in UI"
  7. Capability Discovery - "Users can discover what the agent can do"
  8. Prompt-Native Features - "Features are prompts defining outcomes, not code"

Workflow

Step 1: Load the Agent-Native Skill

First, invoke the agent-native-architecture skill to understand all principles:

/ce-agent-native-architecture

Select option 7 (action parity) to load the full reference material.

Step 2: Launch Parallel Sub-Agents

Launch 8 parallel sub-agents using the platform's subagent primitive (Agent with subagent_type: Explore in Claude Code, spawn_agent with agent_type: "explorer" in Codex, subagent with agent: "scout" in Pi via the pi-subagents extension), one for each principle. Each agent should:

  1. Enumerate ALL instances in the codebase (user actions, tools, contexts, data stores, etc.)
  2. Check compliance against the principle
  3. Provide a SPECIFIC SCORE like "X out of Y (percentage%)"
  4. List specific gaps and recommendations
<sub-agents>

Agent 1: Action Parity

Audit for ACTION PARITY - "Whatever the user can do, the agent can do."

Tasks:
1. Enumerate ALL user actions in frontend (API calls, button clicks, form submissions)
   - Search for API service files, fetch calls, form handlers
   - Check routes and components for user interactions
2. Check which have corresponding agent tools
   - Search for agent tool definitions
   - Map user actions to agent capabilities
3. Score: "Agent can do X out of Y user actions"

Format:
## Action Parity Audit
### User Actions Found
| Action | Location | Agent Tool | Status |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Missing Agent Tools
### Recommendations

Agent 2: Tools as Primitives

Audit for TOOLS AS PRIMITIVES - "Tools provide capability, not behavior."

Tasks:
1. Find and read ALL agent tool files
2. Classify each as:
   - PRIMITIVE (good): read, write, store, list - enables capability without business logic
   - WORKFLOW (bad): encodes business logic, makes decisions, orchestrates steps
3. Score: "X out of Y tools are proper primitives"

Format:
## Tools as Primitives Audit
### Tool Analysis
| Tool | File | Type | Reasoning |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Problematic Tools (workflows that should be primitives)
### Recommendations

Agent 3: Context Injection

Audit for CONTEXT INJECTION - "System prompt includes dynamic context about app state"

Tasks:
1. Find context injection code (search for "context", "system prompt", "inject")
2. Read agent prompts and system messages
3. Enumerate what IS injected vs what SHOULD be:
   - Available resources (files, drafts, documents)
   - User preferences/settings
   - Recent activity
   - Available capabilities listed
   - Session history
   - Workspace state

Format:
## Context Injection Audit
### Context Types Analysis
| Context Type | Injected? | Location | Notes |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Missing Context
### Recommendations

Agent 4: Shared Workspace

Audit for SHARED WORKSPACE - "Agent and user work in the same data space"

Tasks:
1. Identify all data stores/tables/models
2. Check if agents read/write to SAME tables or separate ones
3. Look for sandbox isolation anti-pattern (agent has separate data space)

Format:
## Shared Workspace Audit
### Data Store Analysis
| Data Store | User Access | Agent Access | Shared? |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Isolated Data (anti-pattern)
### Recommendations

Agent 5: CRUD Completeness

Audit for CRUD COMPLETENESS - "Every entity has full CRUD"

Tasks:
1. Identify all entities/models in the codebase
2. For each entity, check if agent tools exist for:
   - Create
   - Read
   - Update
   - Delete
3. Score per entity and overall

Format:
## CRUD Completeness Audit
### Entity CRUD Analysis
| Entity | Create | Read | Update | Delete | Score |
### Overall Score: X/Y entities with full CRUD (percentage%)
### Incomplete Entities (list missing operations)
### Recommendations

Agent 6: UI Integration

Audit for UI INTEGRATION - "Agent actions immediately reflected in UI"

Tasks:
1. Check how agent writes/changes propagate to frontend
2. Look for:
   - Streaming updates (SSE, WebSocket)
   - Polling mechanisms
   - Shared state/services
   - Event buses
   - File watching
3. Identify "silent actions" anti-pattern (agent changes state but UI doesn't update)

Format:
## UI Integration Audit
### Agent Action → UI Update Analysis
| Agent Action | UI Mechanism | Immediate? | Notes |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Silent Actions (anti-pattern)
### Recommendations

Agent 7: Capability Discovery

Audit for CAPABILITY DISCOVERY - "Users can discover what the agent can do"

Tasks:
1. Check for these 7 discovery mechanisms:
   - Onboarding flow showing agent capabilities
   - Help documentation
   - Capability hints in UI
   - Agent self-describes in responses
   - Suggested prompts/actions
   - Empty state guidance
   - Slash commands (/help, /tools)
2. Score against 7 mechanisms

Format:
## Capability Discovery Audit
### Discovery Mechanism Analysis
| Mechanism | Exists? | Location | Quality |
### Score: X/7 (percentage%)
### Missing Discovery
### Recommendations

Agent 8: Prompt-Native Features

Audit for PROMPT-NATIVE FEATURES - "Features are prompts defining outcomes, not code"

Tasks:
1. Read all agent prompts
2. Classify each feature/behavior as defined in:
   - PROMPT (good): outcomes defined in natural language
   - CODE (bad): business logic hardcoded
3. Check if behavior changes require prompt edit vs code change

Format:
## Prompt-Native Features Audit
### Feature Definition Analysis
| Feature | Defined In | Type | Notes |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Code-Defined Features (anti-pattern)
### Recommendations
</sub-agents>

Step 3: Compile Summary Report

After all agents complete, compile a summary with:

## Agent-Native Architecture Review: [Project Name]

### Overall Score Summary

| Core Principle | Score | Percentage | Status |
|----------------|-------|------------|--------|
| Action Parity | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Tools as Primitives | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Context Injection | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Shared Workspace | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| CRUD Completeness | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| UI Integration | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Capability Discovery | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Prompt-Native Features | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |

**Overall Agent-Native Score: X%**

### Status Legend
- ✅ Excellent (80%+)
- ⚠️ Partial (50-79%)
- ❌ Needs Work (<50%)

### Top 10 Recommendations by Impact

| Priority | Action | Principle | Effort |
|----------|--------|-----------|--------|

### What's Working Excellently

[List top 5 strengths]

Success Criteria

  • All 8 sub-agents complete their audits
  • Each principle has a specific numeric score (X/Y format)
  • Summary table shows all scores and status indicators
  • Top 10 recommendations are prioritized by impact
  • Report identifies both strengths and gaps

Optional: Single Principle Audit

If $ARGUMENTS specifies a single principle (e.g., "action parity"), only run that sub-agent and provide detailed findings for that principle alone.

Valid arguments:

  • action parity or 1
  • tools or primitives or 2
  • context or injection or 3
  • shared or workspace or 4
  • crud or 5
  • ui or integration or 6
  • discovery or 7
  • prompt or features or 8

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

ask-matt

無料

Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

JesusFilm/core252026年10月29日 更新

Build applications where agents are first-class citizens. Use this skill when designing autonomous agents, creating MCP tools, implementing self-modifying systems, or building apps where features are outcomes achieved by agents operating in a loop.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

JesusFilm/core252026年10月29日 更新

Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue before writing a right-sized requirements document and planning implementation. Use for feature ideas, problem framing, when the user says 'let's brainstorm', or when they want to think through options before deciding what to build. Also use when a user describes a vague or ambitious feature request, asks 'what should we build', 'help me think through X', presents a problem with multiple valid solutions, or seems unsure about scope or direction — even if they don't explicitly ask to brainstorm.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

JesusFilm/core252026年10月29日 更新

Clean up local branches whose remote tracking branch is gone. Use when the user says "clean up branches", "delete gone branches", "prune local branches", "clean gone", or wants to remove stale local branches that no longer exist on the remote. Also handles removing associated worktrees for branches that have them.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

JesusFilm/core252026年10月29日 更新

Structured code review using tiered persona agents, confidence-gated findings, and a merge/dedup pipeline. Use when reviewing code changes before creating a PR.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

JesusFilm/core252026年10月29日 更新

ce-commit

無料

Create a git commit with a clear, value-communicating message. Use when the user says "commit", "commit this", "save my changes", "create a commit", or wants to commit staged or unstaged work. Produces well-structured commit messages that follow repo conventions when they exist, and defaults to conventional commit format otherwise.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

JesusFilm/core252026年10月29日 更新

JesusFilm のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する