agent-creation

name	agent-creation
description	Use when creating a new specialist agent for Gaia, or reviewing whether an existing agent follows the correct structure, tone, and component inventory
metadata	{"user-invocable":false,"type":"technique"}

Agent Creation

What is an agent?

A specialist agent is a contract over project-context plus a small identity that points at a domain. The contract is the load-bearing part: a read list that filters which slices of project-context get injected (the token-efficiency lever) and a write list that confines what the agent may persist back (the security lever). The identity that wraps the contract is mostly shared — for the builder agents (developer, platform-architect, gitops-operator) it is nearly the same essence — and the only genuinely per-agent pieces are the contract, the skills, and a small subset of "what this agent builds." If the component you are building has no distinct contract, no delegation surface, and could work as injected text, it is a skill, not an agent. That decision belongs upstream — this skill assumes it has been made.

The contract-first model

Creating an agent is contract + skills + a small domain subset, not a personality authored from scratch. Three facts drive every decision below:

1. The contract is the first design decision. Before identity, before tools, before skills, decide the project_context_contracts block. The read list is what makes the agent token-efficient — it filters the project-context injection down to the slices this domain actually reasons over, so the agent is not paying for context it never reads. The write list is what makes the agent safe — it is the allowlist the runtime checks before accepting any update_contracts clause; a contract not in the write list cannot be persisted, no matter what the agent emits. Get this wrong and every other section is built on the wrong foundation.

2. Builder identity is shared essence + a small subset. The builder agents do not each invent a personality. They share one essence: defer to what already exists over a clean-slate design; verify that the change produced the intended outcome rather than trusting an exit code; emit a Realization Package XOR a Findings Report, never a hybrid; be a disciplined citizen of the system (flag what is out of lane, do not edit across boundaries; propose, do not persist beyond the contract); and operate with capability that is free under T3 consent rather than fenced by a fixed toolbox. What is actually per-builder is small: the contract, the skills list, and a one-paragraph subset naming what this agent builds (application code / infrastructure-as-code / Kubernetes desired-state) and which neighbors own the adjacent surfaces. Write the shared essence the same way each time; spend your design effort on the subset and the contract.

3. Base skills come from agent-protocol; soft governance comes from T3. agent-protocol and security-tiers are non-negotiable for every agent and carry the response contract and tier discipline — you do not re-teach them in the identity. The builders are governed softly: their mutations are gated by T3 consent and their contract, not by a hard tool denylist. Hard disallowedTools is reserved for one case (see Step 1, D1).

Step 1: Answer the bifurcating dimensions

Answer these before writing a line. They determine the contract shape, the tool set, and the failure model.

D0 (decide first): What is the contract? Name the read slices this domain reasons over and the write slices it owns. Scope read to what the agent actually consults — every extra slice is injected on every call and spent whether read or not. Scope write to the contracts the agent's domain owns — developer writes application_services, platform-architect writes infrastructure and infrastructure_topology, a read-only diagnostic agent writes nothing or only the one observation contract it curates. This is the answer that makes the agent efficient and safe; the rest of the inventory derives from it.

D1: Does the agent mutate system state? A "yes" means: Write/Edit in tools, permissionMode: acceptEdits in frontmatter, the T3 approval flow in failure handling, and a "Realization Package" output type. A "no" means: no Write/Edit, no T3 surface, read-only output. The hard disallowedTools: [Write, Edit, NotebookEdit] denylist is reserved for the read-only-into-prod case — an agent that inspects live production state and must be incapable of mutating it, e.g. cloud-troubleshooter. That is the one place a hard tool constraint earns its keep, because an accidental write to a live cloud resource is a real incident. The builder agents are not governed this way: they may need Write/Edit/Bash across their whole domain, so they carry no hard denylist (at most [NotebookEdit], the surface no Gaia builder uses) and are governed softly by T3 consent. Do not reach for disallowedTools to "lock down" a builder — that is what T3 is for.

D2: Does the agent delegate to other agents? Almost always "no" for specialists — and the runtime forces it. A Gaia specialist runs as a subagent under the orchestrator, and a subagent cannot spawn subagents: Agent/Task are inert in a subagent's frontmatter even if listed (per Anthropic's subagents doc). D2=yes applies only to an agent run as the main thread via --agent — in practice the orchestrator. A specialist surfaces work it cannot do through its CANNOT DO → DELEGATE table; the orchestrator routes. That table is required regardless of D2.

D3: Does the agent enter the orchestrator's automatic routing? Almost always "yes." A "yes" means the description field is written as triggering conditions (not a role summary) and a routing: frontmatter block (surface, adjacent_surfaces, commands, artifacts, required_checks) is proposed for the agent. Those signals are proposals — gaia-system applies them to the agent's own frontmatter, from which tools/scan/seed_surface_routing.py seeds the surface_routing DB table at install time; tools/context/surface_router.py reads that table (not a JSON file) at runtime.

Step 2: Apply the component inventory

Obligatory in every specialist:

1. project_context_contracts (frontmatter block): the per-agent read/write contract lists from D0. The write list is what the runtime checks before accepting an update_contracts entry in the agent's agent_contract_handoff envelope (see agent-contract-handoff) — a contract absent from write cannot be persisted. This is listed first because it is the first design decision, even though it sits in the frontmatter alongside the other fields.
2. Frontmatter: name, description (triggering conditions only), model, tools. Add permissionMode: acceptEdits if D1=yes. Add disallowedTools only for the read-only-into-prod case ([Write, Edit, NotebookEdit]); a builder needs no hard denylist beyond at most [NotebookEdit]. Add maxTurns for long-running agents.
3. Identity (1-2 paragraphs): for a builder, the shared essence plus the small subset — what this agent builds and which neighbors own the adjacent surfaces. Do not re-author the essence from scratch; carry the same five commitments (defer-to-authority, verify-the-outcome, Realization-Package-XOR-Findings, disciplined-citizen, capability-free-under-T3) and let the subset do the differentiating. For a non-builder (read-only diagnostic), the identity names the constraint that fences it instead.
4. Workflow (numbered steps): the operational sequence for this domain. Put it before Identity when the sequence is the agent's primary reference.
5. Scope — CAN DO / CANNOT DO → DELEGATE: boundaries with reasons. Every CANNOT DO entry names a concrete delegate agent and, ideally, the decision point where a naive agent would cross.
6. Failure handling / Domain Errors: concrete errors with concrete actions. "Report the error" is not an action.
7. Response protocol: the agent loads agent-protocol. Reference it in the skills list; do not replicate its content.

Optional by dimension:

• Delegation table (D2=yes): only meaningful for the main-thread orchestrator — a subagent specialist cannot dispatch, so this does not apply to specialists.
• Surface signals (D3=yes): a proposed routing: frontmatter block (surface, adjacent_surfaces, commands, artifacts, required_checks) for gaia-system to apply to the agent's own file — the source of truth tools/scan/seed_surface_routing.py seeds into the surface_routing DB table at install time.
• Domain reference inline: lookup tables or decision logic that apply only to this agent and do not warrant a skill.

Step 3: Write for judgment, not compliance

Each obligatory component must carry enough weight to change behavior. The test: if the section were removed, would the agent behave differently? If not, it is decorative.

Contract: A read list bloated with slices the agent never consults silently taxes every call; a write list wider than the domain owns is a security hole the runtime will partially catch but should never have been asked to. The weight test for the contract is whether each read slice is actually consulted and each write slice is actually owned.

Identity: For a builder, the essence is shared on purpose — its weight comes from being present and consistent, not from being novel. The differentiating weight lives in the subset: "what this agent builds" must narrow the action space enough that the agent stops at the right boundary. If the subset were removed and the agent still behaved identically to a generic builder, the subset needs more weight.

Scope boundaries: A boundary stated as a category ("cloud infrastructure") is weaker than one that names the decision point ("if the resource type is managed by IaC, creating it belongs to platform-architect even if you need it as a prerequisite").

Failure handling: A row whose action equals the default does nothing. Each row should describe what a naive agent would do wrong and redirect.

Output type declaration: Builders declare "Realization Package XOR Findings Report — never a hybrid" so the agent reaches a clean state at completion instead of mutating files and returning a summary.

Step 4: Write the description field as triggering conditions

The description is what the orchestrator reads to decide when to dispatch. It must describe when to use this agent, not what it is. A role summary satisfies the read without triggering the dispatch.

# Wrong -- describes the role
description: Senior infrastructure architect that manages the cloud lifecycle

# Right -- triggering conditions
description: Use when provisioning, modifying, or validating infrastructure-as-code (Terraform, Pulumi, CloudFormation, OpenTofu), or managing the infrastructure lifecycle

Step 5: Evaluate the skills catalog and propose applicable skills

Do not hardcode a tool-to-skill mapping — the catalog changes and a fixed mapping goes stale silently. Evaluate the current catalog at .claude/skills/ and propose which skills address a recurring risk or discipline gap for this agent's tool set and domain. agent-protocol and security-tiers are non-negotiable for every agent; beyond those, let the tool set and domain guide selection (e.g. command-execution if it runs Bash, investigation if it diagnoses complex state).

Step 6: Propose surface signals (if D3=yes)

For agents in automatic routing, propose a routing: frontmatter block (surface, adjacent_surfaces, commands, artifacts, required_checks — keywords is retired, the matcher scores from commands/artifacts only) written for gaia-system to apply directly to the agent's own file. Do not apply it yourself, and check existing agents' routing: blocks so the new agent's surface and signals do not overlap a sibling's.

Anti-patterns

• Designing identity before the contract: the contract is the first decision because it sets token cost and write safety. Authoring a personality first and bolting a contract on after produces an agent that reads too much and may write where it should not.
• Re-authoring the builder essence from scratch: the builders share one essence by design. Inventing a fresh personality per builder drifts the fleet and wastes the differentiating effort that belongs in the contract and the subset.
• Reaching for disallowedTools to govern a builder: hard denylists are for the read-only-into-prod case. A builder is governed by T3 consent; a hard denylist on it either blocks legitimate work or signals a misunderstanding of where the security boundary lives.
• Treating this as a form: filling sections without the weight test produces a well-structured agent the LLM ignores in favor of baseline behavior.
• Writing the description as a role summary: the orchestrator reads it to decide when to dispatch; a summary satisfies the read without triggering the dispatch.
• Domain Errors that only say "report": every row should redirect to a concrete action a naive agent would not take by default.