repair-agent

name	repair-agent
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "repair an agent", "audit an agent", "fix my agent", "review agent quality", "check if my agent is well-written", "diagnose agent problems", "what's wrong with this agent", "improve this agent", or "what's wrong with this agent file".
argument-hint	<path-to-agent-file>

Agent Repair

Audit and improve an existing Claude Code agent against a gold standard. Unlike create-agent (which generates from scratch), this skill diagnoses violations and identifies gaps — what is broken, what is missing, and what would raise quality. The output is a structured improvement plan covering all dimensions of agent design.

Phase 1: Load the Agent

The agent file at $ARGUMENTS is loaded inline:

@$ARGUMENTS

Note the directory from $ARGUMENTS to verify it lives in agents/ (not skills/). Identify any skills: preloads listed in the frontmatter above.

If the file is a SKILL.md or lives in a skills/ directory, decline and tell the user to use repair-skill instead. If the path is missing or ambiguous, use AskUserQuestion to resolve before proceeding.

Load the following reference files before Phase 2:

1. ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/repair-agent/references/agent-anatomy.md — gold standard for system prompt structure, voice conventions, size invariants, naming, skills: preload pattern, and the gap analysis checklist. Required for Dimensions 3, 5, 6, and 7.
2. ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/create-agent/references/agent-frontmatter.md — complete frontmatter field catalog, valid values, tool selection framework, color semantics, and execution modifiers. Required for Dimensions 1 and 2.

Proceed to Phase 2 when: agent file is confirmed in scope and reference files are loaded.

Phase 2: Audit

Run each dimension independently. For each finding record: the dimension code, what is wrong or missing, which principle it violates or which gold standard it falls short of, and the specific change required. Proceed to Phase 3 when all 7 dimensions are evaluated.

Finding types:

• Violation — something present that contradicts a rule
• Gap — something absent that would improve the agent against the gold standard
• Improvement — something that works but could be meaningfully tightened

Severity:

• critical — breaks triggering or causes the agent to malfunction on every invocation
• major — degrades trigger accuracy, system prompt reliability, or autonomy safety
• minor — polish; the agent works but isn't as good as it could be

---

Dimension 1 — Description Quality

The description is read by the routing model to decide when to spawn this agent. It is the primary trigger mechanism and is always in context. Audit for violations and gaps.

Violations:

• Framing: Does it start with "Use this agent when..."? This exact pattern is what the routing model matches. Any other framing — third-person "This agent should be used when...", first-person, bare imperative — reduces routing match rate. Critical if wrong.
• Scalar type: Does it use | literal scalar? Agents use | (not >) because <example> XML blocks require literal newlines to be preserved. > folds them. Major if using > — blocks may parse incorrectly.
• Example blocks present: Does it have 2–4 <example> blocks? Fewer misses synonym trigger coverage. Major if 0–1 examples.
• Example completeness: Does each <example> have Context:, user:, assistant:, and <commentary>? Missing elements break the routing pattern. Major per missing element.
• Commentary quality: Is <commentary> substantive — explaining routing reasoning — or does it just restate the user message? Hollow commentary wastes tokens without improving routing. Minor.
• Proactive pattern: For agents that should fire after events (not just on explicit request), does the description include a two-turn assistant example (task completed → agent invoked)? Major if proactive intent is declared but the pattern is missing.

Gaps:

• Synonym coverage: Do the examples cover meaningfully different phrasings of the same intent? Near-identical examples miss synonym trigger space. Minor.
• Negative trigger: If adjacent agents exist with overlapping scope, does the description state when NOT to trigger? Minor if adjacent agent exists without disambiguation.

---

Dimension 2 — Frontmatter Modifiers

Refer to agent-frontmatter.md for the complete field catalog, tool selection framework, and color semantics. Omitting a field is not an error when the default applies — audit for mismatches (violations) and missing configuration that would improve the agent (gaps).

Violations:

• Does tools include unscoped Bash for an agent that doesn't need full shell access? Agents run autonomously with no human in the loop — unrestricted Bash is the highest blast-radius grant. Major.
• Is model: opus set for a task sonnet handles? Cost scales directly per spawn. Major.
• Is isolation: worktree set without the agent performing git-state modifications? Unnecessary isolation adds overhead. Minor.
• Does disallowedTools block a tool the system prompt requires? Critical.

Gaps:

• Is color absent? Visual identity in the UI helps users track which agent is active in multi-agent workflows. Minor.
• Is tools absent for a read-only analysis agent? Least-privilege requires an explicit allowlist for autonomous agents — omitting it grants full access when restricted access would suffice. Major for analysis-only agents.
• Is maxTurns absent for a task with a predictable completion horizon? Unbounded agents can loop on ambiguous input. Minor for bounded tasks.
• Is skills absent for an agent with domain-specific knowledge needs? Embedding domain reference directly in the system prompt inflates every spawn; skills: defers it. Major if system prompt exceeds 300 lines of embedded reference data.
• Is isolation: worktree absent for an agent that modifies files in the working tree? Without isolation, modifications are immediate and irreversible during the run. Major.

---

Dimension 3 — System Prompt Voice

The markdown body of an agent file is its system prompt. Voice, persona, and structural conventions determine whether the agent behaves as a specialist or a generic assistant. Refer to agent-anatomy.md for voice conventions and the gold standard structure.

Violations:

• First-person language: Does the body contain "I will", "I'll", "I am", or any first-person construction? Critical — the system prompt is an address to the agent; first-person reads as the agent narrating its own plan rather than following an instruction. Both second-person ("You will analyze...") and bare imperatives in process steps ("Analyze...") are correct conventions — only first-person breaks the contract.
• Third-person self-description: Does the body refer to the agent in third person ("This agent will analyze...", "The agent should...")? Major — the body must address the agent directly, not describe it from the outside.
• No persona statement: Does the first sentence establish role and domain? Without one, the agent has no expert identity to shape downstream decisions. Major.
• No numbered process steps: Unstructured prose instructions produce variable behavior across invocations. Major if unstructured.
• No output format: Is there an Output Format section? Callers — human or orchestrating skill — need predictable structure to consume results. Major if absent.

Gaps:

• No edge cases: Predefined handling prevents mid-task failures that cost retries. Common cases: no input provided, ambiguous input, target missing, empty result. Minor.
• Judgment steps without criteria: Steps like "analyze the situation" or "assess quality" without explicit criteria for what to consider and what constitutes a good outcome. Major per uncovered judgment step.

---

Dimension 4 — Agentic vs Deterministic Split

Load ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/repair-skill/references/script-patterns.md before auditing this dimension. The same five signal patterns apply to agents as to skills.

Agents mix LLM-guided reasoning (agentic) and deterministic operations. The split should be deliberate — see the Degrees of Freedom table in agent-anatomy.md.

Violations:

• Inlined deterministic code: Code blocks that would be re-generated identically across invocations belong in scripts/, not in the system prompt. Major.
• Vague script references: "Run the validation script if needed" — no path, no trigger condition, no output interpretation. Minor.

Gaps — apply the five signal patterns to each process step:

• Signal 1 (Repeated Generation): Same structure, different parameters → script. Major.
• Signal 2 (Unclear Tool Choice): Fragile multi-tool sequence → script the procedure. Major.
• Signal 3 (Rigid Contract): Can write --help for this step → CLI candidate. Minor.
• Signal 4 (Dual-Use): Useful outside the agent → design as proper CLI. Minor.
• Signal 5 (Consistency Critical): Must produce identical output → script, not LLM. Major.

---

Dimension 5 — System Prompt Efficiency

Every line in the agent body is loaded into context every time the agent is spawned. Domain reference data and lookup tables belong in skills: preloads, not embedded inline. Refer to size invariants in agent-anatomy.md to calibrate severity.

Violations:

• Hedging language: "You might want to consider", "generally speaking", "you could try". Replace with direct imperatives. Minor per instance.
• Routing guidance in body: Any section explaining when to trigger the agent belongs in the description field. The body loads only after triggering — routing guidance there never informs the triggering decision and burns context on every spawn. Major.
• Embedded domain reference > 100 lines: Lookup tables, option catalogs, field definitions only needed for specific steps inflate every invocation. Use skills: preload instead. Major.
• System prompt over ~400 lines: Signals embedded content that belongs in skills: preloads. Major.

Gaps:

• Could skills: reduce system prompt size? Identify sections only needed for specific sub-tasks. Major if system prompt > 300 lines with extractable content.

---

Dimension 6 — Process Completeness

A complete agent process is sequential, has explicit steps, and defines what "done" looks like at each step. Audit for broken workflow and for missing structure that would help.

Violations:

• No numbered steps: Prose description of process without step numbers — the agent cannot track progress or know which step it's in. Major.
• Steps without exit conditions: Multi-step processes need explicit completion criteria per step. Without them, the agent may loop or skip prematurely. Major if missing.
• Half-thought steps: Phases that describe intent without specifying action or evaluation criteria. Major per uncovered step.
• No input handling: What does the agent do if input is missing, ambiguous, or malformed? Minor if unaddressed.

Gaps:

• No output format section: Callers cannot reliably consume implicit output structure. Major if agent returns structured data.
• No validation checklist: A self-check at the end of the process catches errors that prose instructions miss. Minor.

---

Dimension 7 — Anatomy Completeness

Agents are typically single files, but their ecosystem includes skills: preloads and optional companion scripts. This dimension asks whether declared structure matches needs.

Refer to the Gap Analysis Checklist in agent-anatomy.md for each absent element.

Violations:

• skills: listed in frontmatter but not referenced in process: Dead preloads inflate context on every spawn without being used. Minor.
• Naming violates conventions: Generic terms (helper, assistant, agent), underscores, over 50 characters, leading/trailing hyphens. Minor.

Gaps:

• No skills: preload for domain-heavy agents: System prompt embeds a large reference catalog that could be externalized. Major if body > 300 lines.
• No companion scripts for consistency-critical steps: Process describes steps that must produce identical output for identical inputs. Major.
• color absent: No visual identity in multi-agent UI contexts. Minor.

---

Phase 3: Improvement Report

Present findings as a structured report. Split violations from gaps. See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/repair-agent/examples/sample-repair.md for a complete example of the report format and a before/after repair session.

AGENT IMPROVEMENT REPORT: <agent-name>
System prompt: [N] lines | Description: [N] examples | Tools: [listed / unrestricted]

VIOLATIONS
──────────
CRITICAL
  [D1] Description does not start with "Use this agent when..." — routing model cannot
       match. Fix: rewrite opening as "Use this agent when [trigger conditions]. Examples:"

MAJOR
  [D3] Body uses first-person throughout ("I will analyze...") — system prompt must be
       second-person because it is an address to the agent, not a narration of intent.
       Fix: rewrite as "Analyze the input and identify..." throughout.
  [D2] `tools` omitted for a read-only analysis agent — omission grants full tool access;
       least-privilege for autonomous agents requires an explicit allowlist.
       Fix: add tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob"]

MINOR
  [D2] `color` not set — no visual identity in multi-agent UI.
       Fix: add color: blue (analysis/review semantic).

GAPS (what would improve this agent)
─────────────────────────────────────
MAJOR
  [D7] System prompt is 380 lines of embedded domain reference. Extract to a skill file
       and preload via `skills:` frontmatter to reduce per-spawn context cost.

MINOR
  [D6] No edge cases section — what happens when the agent receives no input?
       Improvement: add "Edge Cases: No input provided — ask the user to share the target."

Group violations by severity, then gaps by severity. For each: dimension code, what is wrong or missing, the principle it falls short of, the exact fix.

Ask: "Apply all critical and major items? Or select specific ones?"

Proceed to Phase 4 when the user has indicated which items to apply.

---

Phase 4: Apply Improvements

Apply confirmed items in order: critical violations → major violations → major gaps → minor violations → minor gaps.

For each item:

• State what is being changed and why (principle reference, not just "you asked")
• Make the edit
• Confirm the change is consistent with surrounding content

Explain Your Choices

After applying:

• What was changed and why — reference the principle: "Rewrote body as second-person because the system prompt is an address to the agent; first-person breaks the instruction- following contract"
• What was added and why — "Added tools: [Read, Grep, Glob] because this is a read-only agent and least-privilege for autonomous execution requires an explicit allowlist"
• What was left unchanged and why — "Left maxTurns unset — task horizon is open-ended"
• What remains for the user — items requiring domain knowledge to fill

Phase 4 is complete when all confirmed items are applied, explanation delivered, and the validation checklist passes.

---

Validation

After applying all improvements:

1. Run the structural validator:

   python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/create-agent/scripts/validate_agent.py \
     <agent-file> --output json
   

   Exit 0 = structure clean. Exit 1 = parse the errors array; report each entry's field, message, and severity before delivering final results.

2. Load ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/repair-agent/references/quality-checklist.md and run the quality standards check followed by the item-by-item checklist. Report any failing items before delivering final results.