Here's why: The slot machine can drop any hard requirement that you specifically in your AGENTS.md, memory.md or your dozens of skill markdowns. Pretty much guaranteed.

These harnesses approaches pretend as if LLMs are strict and perfect rule followers and the only problem is not being able to specify enough rules clearly enough. That's fundamental cognitive lapse in how LLMs operate.

That leaves only one option not reliable but more reliable nevertheless: Human review and oversight. Possibly two of them one after the other.

Everything else is snake oil but at that point, you also realize that promised productivity gains are also snake oil because reading code and building a mental model is way harder than having a mental model and writing it into code.

When the LLM decides that the situation calls for it

> It is a workflow: a sequence of steps the agent follows, with checkpoints that produce evidence, ending in a defined exit criterion.

A sequence of steps the LLM can decide to follow

Not that these or any "skills" will do that, but just- in principle. This is like alienation from labor at scale.

If Addy reads this, how do you pitch this vs. Superpowers? https://github.com/obra/superpowers

Agent Skills is Addy’s attempt to kill that job too. Cheers Addy. :P

Curious how normal that is - it would only take a couple of these to really fill the context alot.

Good test cases.

Clear and concise documentation.

CI/CD.

Best practices and onboarding docs.

Managing LLMs is becoming more and more similar to managing teams of people.

And Open Design (HN front page yesterday) is supported by “Six load-bearing ideas”

The similarities in the way these prompt libraries are documented doesn’t feel coincidental.

https://github.com/github/spec-kit

I use superpowers for several months now and it really does help. But still 90/10 rule applies, 10% of time it will produce stupid decision. So always check spec.

Yep, benchmarks, comparisons of with/without, samples of generated code with/without. This kind of stuff matters, and you may be making your agent stupider or getting worse results without real analysis.

Also this prose reads like the author has drunk the Google kool-aid and not much else.

This (sdlc == working backwards & bar raiser) is so horribly wrong, that I hope this was an LLM hallucination.

In general, I'm starting to see these agent scaffolding systems as an anti-pattern: people obsess over systems for guiding agents and construct elaborate rube-goldberg machines and then others cargo-cult them wholesale, in an effort to optimize and control a random process and minimize human involvement.

If the LLM fails, either you didn't describe your outcome sufficiently or is misinterpreted what you said or it couldn't do it (rare).

Common errors should be encoded as context for future similar tasks, don't bloat skills with stuff that isn't shown to be necessary.

Very grateful for this repository and everyone who contributed to it!

That being said, this post is full of reasonable assertions, so I'm looking forward to experimenting with this... whatever it is.

Agents do read that. And actually remember it. Because it's tiny with other things you are cramming into their context.

I only make it for me, so it's a bit complex and targeted towards me, and what I do, but it's pretty easy to adjust things.

https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent

Working on reading through Agent Skills, it seems we've converged on a lot of the same points, and I've never seen it, so trying to get an understanding of it.

Edit 1: I don't like all the commands. I just rely on a single router to automatically decide what I want, and that feels like the most reasonable way to me to communicate with it.

I don't want to remember things. And that's the way for me to scale the number of skills and activities. I don't have to think about them.

Edit 2: We have very different routers.

https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills/blob/f504276d8e07...

vs

https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent/blob/main/skills/do/S...

I personally wouldn't call theirs an intelligent router. They are dancing between a few different skills. We have extremely different setups there.

But of course, I'm using way more context to get it done. I'm even sending it out to Haiku to build the route choices.

I choose to use tokens to make things better for myself, not everyone would make the same choice, so I certainly see why they are using a few skills, and composing them.

Edit 3: This is much easier for a user to wrap their head around because there's much less.

I am only focused on the best improvements I can make that show value for my use cases. This is straight foward to reason about.

This seems like a nice way to get the best concepts for people trying to understand them. I commend them for a clean, simple approach.

Edit 4: Yeah, I think there are some things I can learn from them which is always good.

I especially like simple decisions like collapsing the install details for each harness in the readme.

I'm going to read over the entire thing and look for opportunities to improve my stuff.

We are all working together, learning, testing, building, trying to find the best way to implement things.