Use when long-lived agents, project memories, system prompts, or playbooks are repeatedly summarized, rewritten, or optimized and risk losing domain detail, provenance, or execution learnings.
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。
Use when designing retryable or crash-resilient agent workflows, especially when tools can send, charge, publish, provision, or otherwise create duplicate side effects.
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。
Build workflows that can resume without silently repeating externally visible work. Treat orchestration durability and side-effect safety as separate properties: a checkpoint can make a workflow resumable while still allowing an activity or tool to run more than once.
Before implementation, identify:
Never place credentials, authorization headers, payment data, or full sensitive tool arguments in operation keys or logs.
| Question | Required decision |
|---|---|
| Can this tool change external state? | Classify the effect before enabling retries. |
| What identifies one logical operation? | Derive a stable key from business intent, not an attempt or request ID. |
| Who may execute it? | Acquire a unique atomic claim before the effect. |
| Could the effect have committed before a timeout? | Record ambiguous; reconcile before retrying. |
| Does the provider accept an idempotency key? | Reuse the same key for every attempt of the same operation. |
| How is success replayed? | Persist and return a sanitized result reference. |
| How is safety proved? | Run concurrent-duplicate and crash-boundary fixtures. |
Keep deterministic control flow in the workflow and nondeterministic work in activities or tools. A durable engine may replay workflow code and may execute an activity more than once around failures. Its retry policy does not prove that a side effect happens once.
Model each step with:
workflow decision -> durable activity dispatch -> idempotency boundary -> provider/local effect
Checkpoint decisions and outputs, but do not assume that a completed external effect and its local checkpoint are atomic.
Assign one class before setting retry behavior:
| Class | Examples | Default retry policy |
|---|---|---|
| Pure/read-only | deterministic transform, immutable lookup | Bounded automatic retry |
| Naturally idempotent | set resource to an exact desired state | Retry after verifying semantics |
| Deduplicated mutation | payment API with provider idempotency key | Retry only with the same stable key |
| Reconciliable mutation | provision job with operation-status lookup | Query status before retry |
| Non-idempotent mutation | email send with no receipt lookup, market order | No automatic retry after uncertain dispatch |
Classification is about observable effects, not HTTP verbs or tool names. A nominally read-only call can still incur cost or start asynchronous work.
The key represents logical intent, independent of attempts, workers, checkpoints, and model-generated call IDs.
operation_key = HMAC_SHA256(
service_secret,
canonical_json({
tenant_id,
workflow_type,
workflow_instance,
step_name,
business_object_id,
intent_version
})
)
Recommendations:
intent_version when a changed request should be a new operation.Use an HMAC when business fields could be guessed from a plain hash. Log only a short key prefix plus a trace ID.
A check-then-execute-then-insert sequence has a race: concurrent workers can both observe no row and both execute. Enforce uniqueness in the database and let one atomic insert win.
Example PostgreSQL shape:
CREATE TABLE agent_operations (
operation_key text PRIMARY KEY,
request_fingerprint text NOT NULL,
state text NOT NULL CHECK (state IN (
'pending', 'succeeded', 'failed_retryable', 'failed_terminal', 'ambiguous'
)),
owner_token text,
lease_until timestamptz,
provider_operation_id text,
result_ref text,
last_error_class text,
attempt_count integer NOT NULL DEFAULT 1,
created_at timestamptz NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),
updated_at timestamptz NOT NULL DEFAULT now()
);
INSERT INTO agent_operations (
operation_key, request_fingerprint, state, owner_token, lease_until
) VALUES ($1, $2, 'pending', $3, now() + interval '2 minutes')
ON CONFLICT (operation_key) DO NOTHING
RETURNING operation_key;
Interpret the result:
succeeded: return the stored sanitized result reference.pending: wait, poll with bounds, or return in-progress.pending: treat the outcome as uncertain until reconciliation proves otherwise.ambiguous: route to reconciliation; never blindly redispatch a non-idempotent mutation.Do not use a cache-only lock as the record of truth. Locks can expire while a slow operation is still running.
When the operation record and business mutation share a database, perform the mutation and transition to succeeded in one transaction. The unique claim prevents concurrent execution; transaction rollback prevents a committed mutation without its outcome record.
pending and commit the claim.succeeded and store a sanitized result reference.ambiguous; query by idempotency key or provider ID before retrying.Confirm the provider's exact key scope, payload-mismatch behavior, response replay behavior, and retention window. Do not assume all providers implement these semantics alike.
After an uncertain dispatch, do not retry automatically. Use a provider receipt, external object lookup, ledger query, or human review to determine whether the effect happened. If no authoritative reconciliation exists, keep the operation ambiguous and expose that state.
new -> pending -> succeeded
-> failed_terminal
-> failed_retryable -> pending only when retry is proven safe
-> ambiguous -> succeeded reconciliation found the effect
-> failed_retryable reconciliation proved no effect
-> failed_terminal operator decision
Require compare-and-set transitions that include the expected current state and owner token. Record reason codes, not raw sensitive responses. Never let a stale worker overwrite a result produced by a newer owner.
A lease controls ownership, not truth. Lease expiry means “the worker may be gone,” not “the external mutation did not happen.”
For Temporal, Inngest, queues, or a custom checkpoint loop:
Retry a workflow decision and retry a side effect under separate policies.
Reconciliation order:
Avoid fuzzy matching for money, trades, access changes, or deletion. “Probably not sent” is not proof of absence.
Keep operation records at least as long as all of:
When records must expire, archive only the minimum evidence needed to prevent unsafe replay. A retry arriving after deduplication retention has expired must not silently become a fresh mutation; require a new explicit intent or reconciliation.
Recovery rules:
ambiguous, then reconcile.Run synthetic, secret-free fixtures in a disposable environment. Completion requires every assertion below:
ambiguous; no non-idempotent redispatch occurs.Verify the authoritative external system, not only mock call counts.
Use these to evaluate whether the skill changes behavior observably.
Design retries for an agent tool that charges a customer, then may time out before checkpointing.
Pass if the response specifies a stable intent-derived key, atomic unique claim, provider key reuse, persisted result, and reconciliation before retrying an ambiguous charge.
A worker's two-minute lease expired, but its ten-minute provisioning call may still be running. Another worker receives the same tool call. What should it do?
Pass if lease expiry is not treated as proof of failure, the second worker does not blindly execute, and the answer uses status reconciliation plus compare-and-set ownership/state transitions.
Refactor this pure in-memory JSON transformation for readability.
Pass if the response does not introduce a durable operation store or side-effect idempotency machinery.
Sourced facts:
The state machine, key contract, SQL shape, safety defaults, and verification matrix above are original operational recommendations synthesized from those failure modes. Adapt transaction syntax and retention to the selected database, runtime, provider contract, and risk level.
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。
概要と使いどころ
Use when long-lived agents, project memories, system prompts, or playbooks are repeatedly summarized, rewritten, or optimized and risk losing domain detail, provenance, or execution learnings.
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。
Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.
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。
Adds educational comments to a code file so it becomes a learning resource, asking for the file (with a list of close matches) if none is given. Use when preparing code for learners, onboarding, or teaching.
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。
Write, debug, and optimize Adobe Illustrator automation scripts using ExtendScript (JavaScript/JSX). Use when creating or modifying scripts that manipulate documents, layers, paths, text frames, colors, symbols, artboards, or any Illustrator DOM objects. Covers the complete JavaScript object model, coordinate system, measurement units, export workflows, and scripting best practices.
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。
Patterns and techniques for adding governance, safety, and trust controls to AI agent systems. Use this skill when: - Building AI agents that call external tools (APIs, databases, file systems) - Implementing policy-based access controls for agent tool usage - Adding semantic intent classification to detect dangerous prompts - Creating trust scoring systems for multi-agent workflows - Building audit trails for agent actions and decisions - Enforcing rate limits, content filters, or tool restrictions on agents - Working with any agent framework (PydanticAI, CrewAI, OpenAI Agents, LangChain, AutoGen)
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。
Check any AI agent codebase against the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative (ASI) Top 10 risks. Use this skill when: - Evaluating an agent system's security posture before production deployment - Running a compliance check against OWASP ASI 2026 standards - Mapping existing security controls to the 10 agentic risks - Generating a compliance report for security review or audit - Comparing agent framework security features against the standard - Any request like "is my agent OWASP compliant?", "check ASI compliance", or "agentic security audit"
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。