本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

agent-readiness-audit

Audit whether AI agents can actually use your product — docs, APIs, onboarding, errors, and discoverability, evaluated from a non-human user's perspective. Use when asked if a product is agent-ready, to audit a site or API for AI usability, to prepare for agentic traffic, or when agents keep failing against your product. Produces a scored readiness report with per-surface findings and a prioritised fix list. For optimising a single article for AI citation use aeo-optimizer; for designing the MCP server itself use mcp-server-spec.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.4 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 Readiness Audit Skill

A growing share of your product's users aren't human: agents research it, evaluate it, onboard onto it, and operate it on their principals' behalf. They can't watch your demo video, guess what an unlabeled icon means, or call support. This skill audits every surface an agent touches and scores how much of your product is invisible or unusable to them.

What This Skill Produces

  • A readiness score by surface (discovery, docs, API/auth, errors, onboarding, transactions)
  • Per-surface findings with the failing artifact quoted and the fix
  • A prioritised fix list ranked by agent-traffic impact vs effort
  • A re-test protocol so readiness is measured, not vibed

Required Inputs

Ask for (if not already provided):

  • The product and its public surfaces (site, docs URL, API reference, status page)
  • What agents will be asked to do with it — research/compare? sign up? operate it daily?
  • What exists already: llms.txt? MCP server? OpenAPI spec? If unknown, the audit checks
  • Any observed agent failures (the best audit seed there is)

The Audit Surfaces

Walk each surface asking one question: could a capable agent, starting cold, complete its job here without a human unblocking it?

1. Discovery — can agents find and understand what you are? llms.txt present and current · docs fetchable as clean markdown/text (not JS-rendered walls) · pricing and limits stated in prose an agent can quote · comparison-relevant facts (SOC 2, SSO, data residency) written down anywhere at all — an agent can't infer what you never wrote.

2. Docs — written for readers who execute? Every task documented as copy-runnable steps with expected outputs · code samples that actually run (agents execute them verbatim) · one canonical way per task (agents can't arbitrate between three contradictory tutorials) · error-message strings from the product appearing verbatim in the docs so search-by-error works.

3. API & auth — self-serve without a human? Key/token obtainable without a sales call (or the agent path is documented honestly) · OpenAPI spec accurate to the deployed API · rate limits discoverable programmatically · an MCP server, or at least a stated position on one.

4. Errors — instructive to a retrying machine? Errors name the field and the fix · machine-readable codes stable across releases · 4xx vs 5xx used honestly (agents branch on this) · no CAPTCHAs on API-adjacent flows without a documented alternative.

5. Onboarding & transactions — can an agent complete them? Signup/checkout completable without image CAPTCHAs, drag-widgets, or SMS-only verification (or agent-appropriate alternatives exist) · forms with real labels, not placeholder-only · the confirmation state readable as text.

6. Guardrails — do you know your agent traffic? Are agents distinguishable in analytics? Is there a stated policy (terms + technical) for agent use — welcome, gated, or forbidden? Silence is a decision made by accident.

Score each surface 0-4: 0 = actively hostile · 2 = humans-only assumptions throughout · 4 = agent-native. Cite the failing artifact for anything below 3.

Output Format

Agent Readiness Audit: [product] — [n]/24

SurfaceScore /4Sharpest finding

Findings (per surface, worst first) [surface] — [score]: [what fails, with the artifact quoted] → Fix: [specific change]

Fix list, prioritised:

#FixSurfaceImpactEffort

Re-test protocol: [5-8 cold-start agent tasks ("sign up and send one API request", "find whether SSO is on the cheap plan") — run them with a real agent after fixes; the score is the pass rate, not the checklist]

Quality Checks

  • Every score below 3 cites the actual failing artifact (URL, error string, form field), not a vibe
  • Fixes are specific changes, not "improve the docs"
  • The audit distinguishes unwritten facts (agent can't know) from buried facts (agent might find)
  • The fix list is ranked by agent-traffic impact, and states assumptions where traffic is unmeasured
  • The re-test protocol exists — readiness is a pass rate, not an opinion

Anti-Patterns

  • Do not audit from memory of the product — fetch the actual surfaces; they've changed
  • Do not treat "we have great docs" as evidence — great-for-humans routinely scores 1/4 for agents
  • Do not recommend blocking agents as a fix unless the business genuinely wants that — then say it in terms and technically, consistently
  • Do not conflate this with SEO/AEO — being quotable is surface 1; being usable is the other five
  • Do not skip the guardrails surface — unmeasured agent traffic is how products discover this problem in an outage

Example Trigger Phrases

  • "If a product is agent-ready."
  • "Audit a site or API for AI usability."
  • "Prepare for agentic traffic."

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。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.

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。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Decode a 401k or workplace retirement plan — the real cost of its funds, the match's fine print, vesting math, and the plan features worth using or avoiding. Use when someone asks 'is my 401k any good', 'decode my 401k plan', 'which funds should I look at', or 'what fees am I paying'. Produces a fee decode in dollars-over-time, match and vesting math, a fund-lineup triage by cost, and the questions for HR or the plan administrator.

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。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Design statistically rigorous A/B tests for product features, UI changes, onboarding flows, and pricing experiments. Use when asked to set up an experiment, design an A/B test, calculate sample size, or interpret test results. Produces a complete test plan with hypothesis, variant definitions, sample size, duration estimate, guardrail metrics, and a results interpretation guide.

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。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Analyse a finished A/B test and write the readout — the result, whether it's statistically and practically significant, what it means, and the ship/no-ship call. Use when asked to analyse experiment results, write an A/B test readout, interpret test data, or decide whether to ship a variant. Produces a clear verdict with the lift and confidence, segment cuts, the risks (peeking, novelty, sample), and a recommendation. Distinct from planning a test — this reads results.

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。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Build or tailor an academic CV for faculty, postdoc, research or fellowship applications: publications, grants, teaching, supervision and service in the order the field expects, with consistent citations. Use when asked to write my academic CV, update my CV for a lectureship, tenure-track or postdoc application, format my publications list, or adapt my academic CV for an industry research role. Produces the full academic CV, a field-appropriate section order, a clean publications list in one citation style, and a two-page summary version when asked.

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。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Generate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.

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。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

mohitagw15856 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する