Build production-ready LLM applications, advanced RAG systems, and intelligent agents. Implements vector search, multimodal AI, agent orchestration, and enterprise AI integrations. Use PROACTIVELY for LLM features, chatbots, AI agents, or AI-powered applications.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Build production-ready LLM applications, advanced RAG systems, and intelligent agents. Implements vector search, multimodal AI, agent orchestration, and enterprise AI integrations. Use PROACTIVELY for LLM features, chatbots, AI agents, or AI-powered applications.
{"category":"AI & Machine Learning","tags":["llm","rag","agents","ai","production","embeddings"],"provenance":{"kind":"first-party","owners":["port-daddy"]},"pairs-with":[{"skill":"agentic-app-architecture","reason":"Decides the app's overall shape (transparency, memory, execution substrate) before this skill builds the RAG/agent internals inside it."},{"skill":"agentic-infrastructure-2026","reason":"Picks the framework/observability/cost-governance stack this skill's RAG pipeline and agents run on top of."},{"skill":"llm-router","reason":"Supplies the model-selection mechanics behind this skill's Model Routing Strategy decision point."},{"skill":"episodic-memory-algorithms","reason":"Supplies the vector-store/retrieval algorithm internals behind this skill's RAG Component Selection decision point."},{"skill":"prompt-engineer","reason":"Designs and audits the individual prompts this skill's LLM app is built from."}],"io-contract":{"kind":"deliverable","consumes":["[Truncated]","[Truncated]"],"produces":["[Truncated]","[Truncated]"]}}
AI Engineer
Expert in building production-ready LLM applications, from simple chatbots to complex multi-agent systems. Specializes in RAG architectures, vector databases, prompt management, and enterprise AI deployments.
Complexity Assessment:
├── Keywords Only (FAQ) → Claude Haiku
├── Single Document Reference → Claude Sonnet
├── Multi-document Synthesis → Claude Opus
└── Code Generation → Claude Sonnet with tools
Token Budget Check:
├── < 1K tokens → Any model
├── 1K-4K tokens → Sonnet/GPT-4
├── 4K-32K tokens → Claude Opus
└── > 32K tokens → Chunk and summarize first
Model-selection mechanics (cost/latency tiering across providers) belong to llm-router — this
decision point is about matching task complexity to a tier, not the routing implementation itself.
Agent vs RAG Decision
Task Classification:
├── Static Knowledge Query → Pure RAG
├── Need External APIs → Agent with tools
├── Multi-step Reasoning → Agent with planning
├── Real-time Data Required → Agent with live tools
└── Simple Q&A → RAG with fallback to agent
Failure Modes
Semantic Mismatch Cascade
Symptoms: Good retrieval precision but poor answer relevance, users say "close but not quite right"
Detection Rule: If semantic similarity > 0.8 but user satisfaction < 60%
Root Cause: Query and document embeddings optimized for different semantic spaces
Fix: Switch to domain-specific embedding model or implement query expansion with synonyms
Context Window Overflow
Symptoms: Responses become generic, model ignores specific retrieved context, inconsistent answers
Detection Rule: If context utilization ratio < 30% and response generality score > 0.7
: Too many irrelevant chunks diluting relevant information
: Implement stricter relevance threshold (>0.8) and dynamic context selection
Root Cause
Fix
Tool Hallucination Loop
Symptoms: Agent makes up API calls, references non-existent functions, infinite retry cycles
Detection Rule: If tool call success rate < 50% or iteration count > max_iterations * 0.8
Root Cause: Model trained on different tool schemas than implementation
Fix: Add tool validation layer and explicit error handling in agent system prompt
Embedding Drift Degradation
Symptoms: Gradual decline in retrieval quality over time, seasonal performance drops
Detection Rule: If monthly average retrieval@5 drops > 10% from baseline
Root Cause: Domain language evolves but embedding model remains static
Fix: Implement embedding model retraining pipeline or switch to adaptive embeddings
Response Latency Creep
Symptoms: P95 latency increases gradually, user complaints about slow responses
Detection Rule: If P95 response time > 2x baseline for 7 consecutive days
Root Cause: Vector index degradation, context size inflation, or model endpoint saturation
Fix: Implement index optimization schedule, context pruning, and multi-model load balancing
Worked Examples
Example: Customer Support Chatbot Implementation
Initial Requirements: "Build a chatbot that can answer questions about our 500-page product documentation"
Step 1: Architecture Decision
Document count: 500 pages → Use Pinecone for scalability
Expert Insight: For support use case, speed > perfect accuracy
Step 4: Failure Scenario Handling
Discovered 15% of queries were about features not in documentation
Novice: Would return "I don't know"
Expert: Added escalation detection and handoff to human agent
Final Architecture: Pinecone + local reranker + agent escalation = 89% automation rate at 2.1s P95
Anti-Patterns
Shipping RAG on Vibes
Novice: Ships retrieval after a handful of manual "looks good to me" spot-checks; no held-out
evaluation set, no CI gate, no measured recall/precision.
Expert: Stands up a repeatable eval harness (unit + retrieval + end-to-end + adversarial) before
shipping, and re-runs it on every prompt/retrieval/model change.
Detection: ai_system_audit.mjs returns no-eval-harness (critical) when evalHarness.exists is
false, and eval-harness-thin (medium) when it exists but lacks end-to-end/adversarial coverage.
Grounding as a Prompt Suggestion, Not a Checked Property
Novice: Asks the model nicely to "cite your sources" and trusts that it will, with no retrieval
measurement and no validation that citations actually match retrieved content.
Expert: Measures retrieval@k recall/precision against a held-out set (never eyeballs "does this
answer look right"), requires citations for every factual claim, and validates output against
retrieved sources programmatically instead of trusting the prompt.
Detection: ai_system_audit.mjs returns retrieval-never-measured (critical) when
retrieval.used is true but recall/precision were never measured (the Semantic Mismatch Cascade
failure mode above), no-grounding-requirement (critical) when the system makes factual claims but
grounding.citationsRequired is false, and grounding-not-enforced (medium) when citations are
required but sourceAttributionEnforced is false.
No Fallback, No Defense, No Ceiling
Novice: Ships an agent that always answers confidently (no low-confidence fallback), accepts raw
user text and retrieved documents into the same context with no isolation (no injection defense), and
has no per-request cost cap — a single adversarial or pathological request can run away.
Expert: Adds a confidence threshold with an explicit fallback action, isolates untrusted content
(user input, retrieved docs, tool output) from the system prompt, and enforces a per-request cost
ceiling as part of the design — not as an afterthought infra control.
Detection: ai_system_audit.mjs returns no-low-confidence-fallback (critical) when
lowConfidenceFallback.exists is false, no-injection-defense (critical) when the system accepts
untrusted input and promptInjectionDefense.exists is false, no-cost-ceiling (high) when
costCeiling.enforced is false, and tool-hallucination-risk (critical) — the Tool Hallucination
Loop failure mode above — when tools are used with no toolUse.validationLayer.
Quality Gates
Retrieval@5 accuracy > 85% on evaluation dataset
Average response latency < 3 seconds for P95
Context utilization ratio > 60% (model uses retrieved information)
Hallucination rate < 5% (responses not supported by retrieved context)
User satisfaction score > 80% over 30-day rolling window
Token cost per query < predefined budget threshold
System uptime > 99.9% excluding planned maintenance
PII detection rate > 95% (no personal info in responses)
Embedding model performance stable (no >10% monthly degradation)
Error handling covers all failure modes with graceful degradation
Machine-Checkable Audit
The build-quality subset of the Quality Gates above — the parts a JSON plan can state before a line
of code ships — is machine-checkable. scripts/ai_system_audit.mjs exports auditAiSystem(plan),
which scores a JSON AI-system plan and flags the failure modes most likely to ship a broken AI
feature: no eval harness, unmeasured retrieval, unrequired/unenforced grounding, missing hallucination
guardrails, no low-confidence fallback, missing streaming UX on an interactive system, no prompt
injection defense on untrusted input, no enforced per-request cost ceiling, and unvalidated tool calls.
This is deliberately scoped to the AI system's own build quality — it does NOT re-check
agentic-infrastructure-2026's infra_readiness.mjs gates (framework selection, MCP context
overhead, observability wiring, organizational/adoption readiness). A plan can pass this audit and
still fail that one (e.g. a well-built RAG pipeline with no chosen framework or kill switch), and vice
versa.
schemas/ai-system-plan.schema.json — draft-07 shape of the plan the auditor consumes.
examples/sample-input.json — a complete plan that scores pass: true.
examples/expected-output.md — a "ships on vibes" plan audited, then the same plan fixed and passing.
Building the routing layer that picks Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus per request at runtime
Cost/latency-tiered dispatch across providers
Agentic App Shape Decisions → Use agentic-app-architecture instead
Interaction transparency, execution-substrate/side-effect isolation, overall memory/state shape
(this skill builds what runs inside that shape, not the shape itself)
Memory Algorithm Internals → Use episodic-memory-algorithms instead
examples/expected-output.md — Example Output: AI Engineer — Scenario: a team ships a customer-support RAG chatbot after two weeks of manual "looks good to me" spot-checking.