npm - opencode-skills-collection - Versions diffs - 4.0.53 → 4.0.55 - Mend

opencode-skills-collection 4.0.53 → 4.0.55

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.

Files changed (1230) hide show

package/bundled-skills/autonomous-agents/SKILL.md CHANGED Viewed

@@ -25,852 +25,9 @@ error rates kill autonomous agents. A 95% success rate per step drops to
 boundaries, not "autonomous everything." Treat AI outputs as proposals,
 not truth.
-## Principles
+## Detailed Guide
-- Reliability over autonomy - every step compounds error probability
-- Constrain scope - domain-specific beats general-purpose
-- Treat outputs as proposals, not truth
-- Build guardrails before expanding capabilities
-- Human-in-the-loop for critical decisions is non-negotiable
-- Log everything - every action must be auditable
-- Fail safely with rollback, not silently with corruption
-## Capabilities
-- autonomous-agents
-- agent-loops
-- goal-decomposition
-- self-correction
-- reflection-patterns
-- react-pattern
-- plan-execute
-- agent-reliability
-- agent-guardrails
-## Scope
-- multi-agent-systems → multi-agent-orchestration
-- tool-building → agent-tool-builder
-- memory-systems → agent-memory-systems
-- workflow-orchestration → workflow-automation
-## Tooling
-### Frameworks
-- LangGraph - When: Production agents with state management Note: 1.0 released Oct 2025, checkpointing, human-in-loop
-- AutoGPT - When: Research/experimentation, open-ended exploration Note: Needs external guardrails for production
-- CrewAI - When: Role-based agent teams Note: Good for specialized agent collaboration
-- Claude Agent SDK - When: Anthropic ecosystem agents Note: Computer use, tool execution
-### Patterns
-- ReAct - When: Reasoning + Acting in alternating steps Note: Foundation for most modern agents
-- Plan-Execute - When: Separate planning from execution Note: Better for complex multi-step tasks
-- Reflection - When: Self-evaluation and correction Note: Evaluator-optimizer loop
-## Patterns
-### ReAct Agent Loop
-Alternating reasoning and action steps
-**When to use**: Interactive problem-solving, tool use, exploration
-# REACT PATTERN:
-"""
-The ReAct loop:
-1. Thought: Reason about what to do next
-2. Action: Choose and execute a tool
-3. Observation: Receive result
-4. Repeat until goal achieved
-Key: Explicit reasoning traces make debugging possible
-"""
-## Basic ReAct Implementation
-"""
-from langchain.agents import create_react_agent
-from langchain_openai import ChatOpenAI
-# Define the ReAct prompt template
-react_prompt = '''
-Answer the question using the following format:
-Question: the input question
-Thought: reason about what to do
-Action: tool_name
-Action Input: input to the tool
-Observation: result of the action
-... (repeat Thought/Action/Observation as needed)
-Thought: I now know the final answer
-Final Answer: the answer
-'''
-# Create the agent
-agent = create_react_agent(
-    llm=ChatOpenAI(model="gpt-4o"),
-    tools=tools,
-    prompt=react_prompt,
-)
-# Execute with step limit
-result = agent.invoke(
-    {"input": query},
-    config={"max_iterations": 10}  # Prevent runaway loops
-)
-"""
-## LangGraph ReAct (Production)
-"""
-from langgraph.prebuilt import create_react_agent
-from langgraph.checkpoint.postgres import PostgresSaver
-# Production checkpointer
-checkpointer = PostgresSaver.from_conn_string(
-    os.environ["POSTGRES_URL"]
-)
-agent = create_react_agent(
-    model=llm,
-    tools=tools,
-    checkpointer=checkpointer,  # Durable state
-)
-# Invoke with thread for state persistence
-config = {"configurable": {"thread_id": "user-123"}}
-result = agent.invoke({"messages": [query]}, config)
-"""
-### Plan-Execute Pattern
-Separate planning phase from execution
-**When to use**: Complex multi-step tasks, when full plan visibility matters
-# PLAN-EXECUTE PATTERN:
-"""
-Two-phase approach:
-1. Planning: Decompose goal into subtasks
-2. Execution: Execute subtasks, potentially re-plan
-Advantages:
-- Full visibility into plan before execution
-- Can validate/modify plan with human
-- Cleaner separation of concerns
-Disadvantages:
-- Less adaptive to mid-task discoveries
-- Plan may become stale
-"""
-## LangGraph Plan-Execute
-"""
-from langgraph.prebuilt import create_plan_and_execute_agent
-# Planner creates the task list
-planner_prompt = '''
-For the given objective, create a step-by-step plan.
-Each step should be atomic and actionable.
-Format: numbered list of steps.
-'''
-# Executor handles individual steps
-executor_prompt = '''
-You are executing step {step_number} of the plan.
-Previous results: {previous_results}
-Current step: {current_step}
-Execute this step using available tools.
-'''
-agent = create_plan_and_execute_agent(
-    planner=planner_llm,
-    executor=executor_llm,
-    tools=tools,
-    replan_on_error=True,  # Re-plan if step fails
-)
-# Human approval of plan
-config = {
-    "configurable": {
-        "thread_id": "task-456",
-    },
-    "interrupt_before": ["execute"],  # Pause before execution
-}
-# First call creates plan
-plan = agent.invoke({"objective": goal}, config)
-# Review plan, then continue
-if human_approves(plan):
-    result = agent.invoke(None, config)  # Continue from checkpoint
-"""
-## Decomposition Strategies
-"""
-# Decomposition-First: Plan everything, then execute
-# Best for: Stable tasks, need full plan approval
-# Interleaved: Plan one step, execute, repeat
-# Best for: Dynamic tasks, learning as you go
-def interleaved_execute(goal, max_steps=10):
-    state = {"goal": goal, "completed": [], "remaining": [goal]}
-    for step in range(max_steps):
-        # Plan next action based on current state
-        next_action = planner.plan_next(state)
-        if next_action == "DONE":
-            break
-        # Execute and update state
-        result = executor.execute(next_action)
-        state["completed"].append((next_action, result))
-        # Re-evaluate remaining work
-        state["remaining"] = planner.reassess(state)
-    return state
-"""
-### Reflection Pattern
-Self-evaluation and iterative improvement
-**When to use**: Quality matters, complex outputs, creative tasks
-# REFLECTION PATTERN:
-"""
-Self-correction loop:
-1. Generate initial output
-2. Evaluate against criteria
-3. Critique and identify issues
-4. Refine based on critique
-5. Repeat until satisfactory
-Also called: Evaluator-Optimizer, Self-Critique
-"""
-## Basic Reflection
-"""
-def reflect_and_improve(task, max_iterations=3):
-    # Initial generation
-    output = generator.generate(task)
-    for i in range(max_iterations):
-        # Evaluate output
-        critique = evaluator.critique(
-            task=task,
-            output=output,
-            criteria=[
-                "Correctness",
-                "Completeness",
-                "Clarity",
-            ]
-        )
-        if critique["passes_all"]:
-            return output
-        # Refine based on critique
-        output = generator.refine(
-            task=task,
-            previous_output=output,
-            critique=critique["feedback"],
-        )
-    return output  # Best effort after max iterations
-"""
-## LangGraph Reflection
-"""
-from langgraph.graph import StateGraph
-def build_reflection_graph():
-    graph = StateGraph(ReflectionState)
-    # Nodes
-    graph.add_node("generate", generate_node)
-    graph.add_node("reflect", reflect_node)
-    graph.add_node("output", output_node)
-    # Edges
-    graph.add_edge("generate", "reflect")
-    graph.add_conditional_edges(
-        "reflect",
-        should_continue,
-        {
-            "continue": "generate",  # Loop back
-            "end": "output",
-        }
-    )
-    return graph.compile()
-def should_continue(state):
-    if state["iteration"] >= 3:
-        return "end"
-    if state["score"] >= 0.9:
-        return "end"
-    return "continue"
-"""
-## Separate Evaluator (More Robust)
-"""
-# Use different model for evaluation to avoid self-bias
-generator = ChatOpenAI(model="gpt-4o")
-evaluator = ChatOpenAI(model="gpt-4o-mini")  # Different perspective
-# Or use specialized evaluators
-from langchain.evaluation import load_evaluator
-evaluator = load_evaluator("criteria", criteria="correctness")
-"""
-### Guardrailed Autonomy
-Constrained agents with safety boundaries
-**When to use**: Production systems, critical operations
-# GUARDRAILED AUTONOMY:
-"""
-Production agents need multiple safety layers:
-1. Input validation
-2. Action constraints
-3. Output validation
-4. Cost limits
-5. Human escalation
-6. Rollback capability
-"""
-## Multi-Layer Guardrails
-"""
-class GuardedAgent:
-    def __init__(self, agent, config):
-        self.agent = agent
-        self.max_cost = config.get("max_cost_usd", 1.0)
-        self.max_steps = config.get("max_steps", 10)
-        self.allowed_actions = config.get("allowed_actions", [])
-        self.require_approval = config.get("require_approval", [])
-    async def execute(self, goal):
-        total_cost = 0
-        steps = 0
-        while steps < self.max_steps:
-            # Get next action
-            action = await self.agent.plan_next(goal)
-            # Validate action is allowed
-            if action.name not in self.allowed_actions:
-                raise ActionNotAllowedError(action.name)
-            # Check if approval needed
-            if action.name in self.require_approval:
-                approved = await self.request_human_approval(action)
-                if not approved:
-                    return {"status": "rejected", "action": action}
-            # Estimate cost
-            estimated_cost = self.estimate_cost(action)
-            if total_cost + estimated_cost > self.max_cost:
-                raise CostLimitExceededError(total_cost)
-            # Execute with rollback capability
-            checkpoint = await self.save_checkpoint()
-            try:
-                result = await self.agent.execute(action)
-                total_cost += self.actual_cost(action)
-                steps += 1
-            except Exception as e:
-                await self.rollback_to(checkpoint)
-                raise
-            if result.is_complete:
-                break
-        return {"status": "complete", "total_cost": total_cost}
-"""
-## Least Privilege Principle
-"""
-# Define minimal permissions per task type
-TASK_PERMISSIONS = {
-    "research": ["web_search", "read_file"],
-    "coding": ["read_file", "write_file", "run_tests"],
-    "admin": ["all"],  # Rarely grant this
-}
-def create_scoped_agent(task_type):
-    allowed = TASK_PERMISSIONS.get(task_type, [])
-    tools = [t for t in ALL_TOOLS if t.name in allowed]
-    return Agent(tools=tools)
-"""
-## Cost Control
-"""
-# Context length grows quadratically in cost
-# Double context = 4x cost
-def trim_context(messages, max_tokens=4000):
-    # Keep system message and recent messages
-    system = messages[0]
-    recent = messages[-10:]
-    # Summarize middle if needed
-    if len(messages) > 11:
-        middle = messages[1:-10]
-        summary = summarize(middle)
-        return [system, summary] + recent
-    return messages
-"""
-### Durable Execution Pattern
-Agents that survive failures and resume
-**When to use**: Long-running tasks, production systems, multi-day processes
-# DURABLE EXECUTION:
-"""
-Production agents must:
-- Survive server restarts
-- Resume from exact point of failure
-- Handle hours/days of runtime
-- Allow human intervention mid-process
-LangGraph 1.0 provides this natively.
-"""
-## LangGraph Checkpointing
-"""
-from langgraph.checkpoint.postgres import PostgresSaver
-from langgraph.graph import StateGraph
-# Production checkpointer (not MemorySaver!)
-checkpointer = PostgresSaver.from_conn_string(
-    os.environ["POSTGRES_URL"]
-)
-# Build graph with checkpointing
-graph = StateGraph(AgentState)
-# ... add nodes and edges ...
-agent = graph.compile(checkpointer=checkpointer)
-# Each invocation saves state
-config = {"configurable": {"thread_id": "long-task-789"}}
-# Start task
-agent.invoke({"goal": complex_goal}, config)
-# If server dies, resume later:
-state = agent.get_state(config)
-if not state.is_complete:
-    agent.invoke(None, config)  # Continues from checkpoint
-"""
-## Human-in-the-Loop Interrupts
-"""
-# Pause at specific nodes
-agent = graph.compile(
-    checkpointer=checkpointer,
-    interrupt_before=["critical_action"],  # Pause before
-    interrupt_after=["validation"],        # Pause after
-)
-# First invocation pauses at interrupt
-result = agent.invoke({"goal": goal}, config)
-# Human reviews state
-state = agent.get_state(config)
-if human_approves(state):
-    # Continue from pause point
-    agent.invoke(None, config)
-else:
-    # Modify state and continue
-    agent.update_state(config, {"approved": False})
-    agent.invoke(None, config)
-"""
-## Time-Travel Debugging
-"""
-# LangGraph stores full history
-history = list(agent.get_state_history(config))
-# Go back to any previous state
-past_state = history[5]
-agent.update_state(config, past_state.values)
-# Replay from that point with modifications
-agent.invoke(None, config)
-"""
-## Sharp Edges
-### Error Probability Compounds Exponentially
-Severity: CRITICAL
-Situation: Building multi-step autonomous agents
-Symptoms:
-Agent works in demos but fails in production. Simple tasks succeed,
-complex tasks fail mysteriously. Success rate drops dramatically
-as task complexity increases. Users lose trust.
-Why this breaks:
-Each step has independent failure probability. A 95% success rate
-per step sounds great until you realize:
-- 5 steps: 77% success (0.95^5)
-- 10 steps: 60% success (0.95^10)
-- 20 steps: 36% success (0.95^20)
-This is the fundamental limit of autonomous agents. Every additional
-step multiplies failure probability.
-Recommended fix:
-## Reduce step count
-# Combine steps where possible
-# Prefer fewer, more capable steps over many small ones
-## Increase per-step reliability
-# Use structured outputs (JSON schemas)
-# Add validation at each step
-# Use better models for critical steps
-## Design for failure
-class RobustAgent:
-    def execute_with_retry(self, step, max_retries=3):
-        for attempt in range(max_retries):
-            try:
-                result = step.execute()
-                if self.validate(result):
-                    return result
-            except Exception as e:
-                if attempt == max_retries - 1:
-                    raise
-                self.log_retry(step, attempt, e)
-## Break into checkpointed segments
-# Human review at each segment
-# Resume from last good checkpoint
-### API Costs Explode with Context Growth
-Severity: CRITICAL
-Situation: Running agents with growing conversation context
-Symptoms:
-$47 to close a single support ticket. Thousands in surprise API bills.
-Agents getting slower as they run longer. Token counts exceeding
-model limits.
-Why this breaks:
-Transformer costs scale quadratically with context length. Double
-the context, quadruple the compute. A long-running agent that
-re-sends its full conversation each turn can burn money exponentially.
-Most agents append to context without trimming. Context grows:
-- Turn 1: 500 tokens → $0.01
-- Turn 10: 5000 tokens → $0.10
-- Turn 50: 25000 tokens → $0.50
-- Turn 100: 50000 tokens → $1.00+ per message
-Recommended fix:
-## Set hard cost limits
-class CostLimitedAgent:
-    MAX_COST_PER_TASK = 1.00  # USD
-    def __init__(self):
-        self.total_cost = 0
-    def before_call(self, estimated_tokens):
-        estimated_cost = self.estimate_cost(estimated_tokens)
-        if self.total_cost + estimated_cost > self.MAX_COST_PER_TASK:
-            raise CostLimitExceeded(
-                f"Would exceed ${self.MAX_COST_PER_TASK} limit"
-            )
-    def after_call(self, response):
-        self.total_cost += self.calculate_actual_cost(response)
-## Trim context aggressively
-def trim_context(messages, max_tokens=4000):
-    # Keep: system prompt + last N messages
-    # Summarize: everything in between
-    if count_tokens(messages) <= max_tokens:
-        return messages
-    system = messages[0]
-    recent = messages[-5:]
-    middle = messages[1:-5]
-    if middle:
-        summary = summarize(middle)  # Compress history
-        return [system, summary] + recent
-    return [system] + recent
-## Use streaming to track costs in real-time
-## Alert at 50% of budget, halt at 90%
-### Demo Works But Production Fails
-Severity: CRITICAL
-Situation: Moving from prototype to production
-Symptoms:
-Impressive demo to stakeholders. Months of failure in production.
-Works for the founder's use case, fails for real users. Edge cases
-overwhelm the system.
-Why this breaks:
-Demos show the happy path with curated inputs. Production means:
-- Unexpected inputs (typos, ambiguity, adversarial)
-- Scale (1000 users, not 3)
-- Reliability (99.9% uptime, not "usually works")
-- Edge cases (the 1% that breaks everything)
-The methodology is questionable, but the core problem is real.
-The gap between a working demo and a reliable production system
-is where projects die.
-Recommended fix:
-## Test at scale before production
-# Run 1000+ test cases, not 10
-# Measure P95/P99 success rate, not average
-# Include adversarial inputs
-## Build observability first
-import structlog
-logger = structlog.get_logger()
-class ObservableAgent:
-    def execute(self, task):
-        with logger.bind(task_id=task.id):
-            logger.info("task_started")
-            try:
-                result = self._execute(task)
-                logger.info("task_completed", result=result)
-                return result
-            except Exception as e:
-                logger.error("task_failed", error=str(e))
-                raise
-## Have escape hatches
-# Human takeover when confidence < threshold
-# Graceful degradation to simpler behavior
-# "I don't know" is a valid response
-## Deploy incrementally
-# 1% of traffic, then 10%, then 50%
-# Monitor error rates at each stage
-### Agent Fabricates Data When Stuck
-Severity: HIGH
-Situation: Agent can't complete task with available information
-Symptoms:
-Agent invents plausible-looking data. Fake restaurant names on expense
-reports. Made-up statistics in reports. Confident answers that are
-completely wrong.
-Why this breaks:
-LLMs are trained to be helpful and produce plausible outputs. When
-stuck, they don't say "I can't do this" - they fabricate. Autonomous
-agents compound this by acting on fabricated data without human review.
-The agent that fabricated expense entries was trying to meet its goal
-(complete the expense report). It "solved" the problem by inventing data.
-Recommended fix:
-## Validate against ground truth
-def validate_expense(expense):
-    # Cross-check with external sources
-    if expense.restaurant:
-        if not verify_restaurant_exists(expense.restaurant):
-            raise ValidationError("Restaurant not found")
-    # Check for suspicious patterns
-    if expense.amount == round(expense.amount, -1):
-        flag_for_review("Suspiciously round amount")
-## Require evidence
-system_prompt = '''
-For every factual claim, cite the specific tool output that
-supports it. If you cannot find supporting evidence, say
-"I could not verify this" rather than guessing.
-'''
-## Use structured outputs
-from pydantic import BaseModel
-class VerifiedClaim(BaseModel):
-    claim: str
-    source: str  # Must reference tool output
-    confidence: float
-## Detect uncertainty
-# Train to output confidence scores
-# Flag low-confidence outputs for human review
-# Never auto-execute on uncertain data
-### Integration Is Where Agents Die
-Severity: HIGH
-Situation: Connecting agent to external systems
-Symptoms:
-Works with mock APIs, fails with real ones. Rate limits cause crashes.
-Auth tokens expire mid-task. Data format mismatches. Partial failures
-leave systems in inconsistent state.
-Why this breaks:
-The companies promising "autonomous agents that integrate with your
-entire tech stack" haven't built production systems at scale.
-Real integrations have:
-- Rate limits (429 errors mid-task)
-- Auth complexity (OAuth refresh, token expiry)
-- Data format variations (API v1 vs v2)
-- Partial failures (webhook received, processing failed)
-- Eventual consistency (data not immediately available)
-Recommended fix:
-## Build robust API clients
-from tenacity import retry, stop_after_attempt, wait_exponential
-class RobustAPIClient:
-    @retry(
-        stop=stop_after_attempt(3),
-        wait=wait_exponential(multiplier=1, min=4, max=60)
-    )
-    async def call(self, endpoint, data):
-        response = await self.client.post(endpoint, json=data)
-        if response.status_code == 429:
-            retry_after = response.headers.get("Retry-After", 60)
-            await asyncio.sleep(int(retry_after))
-            raise RateLimitError()
-        return response
-## Handle auth lifecycle
-class TokenManager:
-    def __init__(self):
-        self.token = None
-        self.expires_at = None
-    async def get_token(self):
-        if self.is_expired():
-            self.token = await self.refresh_token()
-        return self.token
-    def is_expired(self):
-        buffer = timedelta(minutes=5)  # Refresh early
-        return datetime.now() > (self.expires_at - buffer)
-## Use idempotency keys
-# Every external action should be idempotent
-# If agent retries, external system handles duplicate
-## Design for partial failure
-# Each step is independently recoverable
-# Checkpoint before external calls
-# Rollback capability for each integration
-### Agent Takes Dangerous Actions
-Severity: HIGH
-Situation: Agent with broad permissions
-Symptoms:
-Agent deletes production data. Sends emails to wrong recipients.
-Makes purchases without approval. Modifies settings it shouldn't.
-Actions that can't be undone.
-Why this breaks:
-Agents optimize for their goal. Without guardrails, they'll take the
-shortest path - even if that path is destructive. An agent told to
-"clean up the database" might interpret that as "delete everything."
-Broad permissions + autonomy + goal optimization = danger.
-Recommended fix:
-### Least privilege principle
-PERMISSIONS = {
-    "research_agent": ["read_web", "read_docs"],
-    "code_agent": ["read_file", "write_file", "run_tests"],
-    "email_agent": ["read_email", "draft_email"],  # NOT send
-    "admin_agent": ["all"],  # Rarely used
-}
-## Separate read/write permissions
-# Agent can read anything
-# Write requires explicit approval
-## Dangerous actions require confirmation
-DANGEROUS_ACTIONS = [
-    "delete_*",
-    "send_email",
-    "transfer_money",
-    "modify_production",
-    "revoke_access",
-]
-async def execute_action(action):
-    if matches_dangerous_pattern(action):
-        approval = await request_human_approval(action)
-        if not approval:
-            return ActionRejected(action)
-    return await actually_execute(action)
-## Dry-run mode for testing
-# Agent describes what it would do
-# Human approves the plan
-# Then agent executes
-## Audit logging for everything
-# Every action logged with context
-# Who authorized it
-# What changed
-# How to reverse it
-### Agent Runs Out of Context Window
-Severity: MEDIUM
-Situation: Long-running agent tasks
-Symptoms:
-Agent forgets earlier instructions. Contradicts itself. Loses track
-of the goal. Starts repeating itself. Model errors about token limits.
-Why this breaks:
-Every message, observation, and thought consumes context. Long tasks
-exhaust the window. When context is truncated:
-- System prompt gets dropped
-- Early important context lost
-- Agent loses coherence
-Recommended fix:
+Read [the detailed guide](references/detailed-guide.md) before executing this skill. It retains the complete procedure and reference material. Treat its safety, prerequisites, and validation requirements as mandatory. For focused work, load the relevant sections; for end-to-end work, read the guide completely.
 ## Track context usage
 class ContextManager:
@@ -899,171 +56,6 @@ class ContextManager:
             summary = summarize_messages(middle)
             self.messages = [system, summary] + recent
-## Use external memory
-# Don't keep everything in context
-# Store in vector DB, retrieve when needed
-# See agent-memory-systems skill
-## Hierarchical summarization
-# Recent: full detail
-# Medium: key points
-# Old: compressed summary
-### Can't Debug What You Can't See
-Severity: MEDIUM
-Situation: Agent fails mysteriously
-Symptoms:
-"It just didn't work." No idea why agent failed. Can't reproduce
-issues. Users report problems you can't explain. Debugging is
-guesswork.
-Why this breaks:
-Agents make dozens of internal decisions. Without visibility into
-each step, you're blind to failure modes. Production debugging
-without traces is impossible.
-Recommended fix:
-## Structured logging
-import structlog
-logger = structlog.get_logger()
-class TracedAgent:
-    def think(self, context):
-        with logger.bind(step="think"):
-            thought = self.llm.generate(context)
-            logger.info("thought_generated",
-                thought=thought,
-                tokens=count_tokens(thought)
-            )
-            return thought
-    def act(self, action):
-        with logger.bind(step="act", action=action.name):
-            logger.info("action_started")
-            try:
-                result = action.execute()
-                logger.info("action_completed", result=result)
-                return result
-            except Exception as e:
-                logger.error("action_failed", error=str(e))
-                raise
-## Use LangSmith or similar
-from langsmith import trace
-@trace
-def agent_step(state):
-    # Automatically traced with inputs/outputs
-    return next_state
-## Save full traces
-# Every step, every decision
-# Inputs and outputs
-# Latency at each step
-# Token usage
-## Validation Checks
-### Agent Loop Without Step Limit
-Severity: ERROR
-Autonomous agents must have maximum step limits
-Message: Agent loop without step limit. Add max_steps to prevent infinite loops.
-### No Cost Tracking or Limits
-Severity: ERROR
-Agents should track and limit API costs
-Message: Agent uses LLM without cost tracking. Add cost limits to prevent runaway spending.
-### Agent Without Timeout
-Severity: WARNING
-Long-running agents need timeouts
-Message: Agent invocation without timeout. Add timeout to prevent hung tasks.
-### MemorySaver Used in Production
-Severity: ERROR
-MemorySaver is for development only
-Message: MemorySaver is not persistent. Use PostgresSaver or SqliteSaver for production.
-### Long-Running Agent Without Checkpointing
-Severity: WARNING
-Agents that run multiple steps need checkpointing
-Message: Multi-step agent without checkpointing. Add checkpointer for durability.
-### Agent Without Thread ID
-Severity: WARNING
-Checkpointed agents need unique thread IDs
-Message: Agent invocation without thread_id. State won't persist correctly.
-### Using Agent Output Without Validation
-Severity: WARNING
-Agent outputs should be validated before use
-Message: Agent output used without validation. Validate before acting on results.
-### Agent Without Structured Output
-Severity: INFO
-Structured outputs are more reliable
-Message: Consider using structured outputs (Pydantic) for more reliable parsing.
-### Agent Without Error Recovery
-Severity: WARNING
-Agents should handle and recover from errors
-Message: Agent call without error handling. Add try/catch or error handler.
-### Destructive Actions Without Rollback
-Severity: WARNING
-Actions that modify state should be reversible
-Message: Destructive action without rollback capability. Save state before modification.
-## Collaboration
-### Delegation Triggers
-- user needs multi-agent coordination -> multi-agent-orchestration (Multiple agents working together)
-- user needs to test/evaluate agent -> agent-evaluation (Benchmarking and testing)
-- user needs tools for agent -> agent-tool-builder (Tool design and implementation)
-- user needs persistent memory -> agent-memory-systems (Long-term memory architecture)
-- user needs workflow automation -> workflow-automation (When agent is overkill for the task)
-- user needs computer control -> computer-use-agents (GUI automation, screen interaction)
-## Related Skills
-Works well with: `agent-tool-builder`, `agent-memory-systems`, `multi-agent-orchestration`, `agent-evaluation`
 ## When to Use
 - User mentions or implies: autonomous agent
 - User mentions or implies: autogpt
@@ -1078,6 +70,12 @@ Works well with: `agent-tool-builder`, `agent-memory-systems`, `multi-agent-orch
 - User mentions or implies: agentic ai
 - User mentions or implies: agent planning
+## Example
+**User request:**
+> Use @autonomous-agents for this task: Autonomous agents are AI systems that can independently decompose goals, plan actions, execute tools, and self-correct without constant human guidance.
 ## Limitations
 - Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
 - Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.