skills/workflow-repository/writing-agents-md/SKILL.md
Create, review, audit, migrate, or update scoped AGENTS.md repository guidance with evidence-backed commands, concise constraints, explicit authority, instruction precedence, and verifiable completion criteria.
npx skillsauth add narumiruna/agent-skills writing-agents-mdInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Write the smallest repository guidance that gives an agent the context, constraints, authority, and evidence needed to finish work safely.
AGENTS.md files. Explicit user instructions outrank repository guidance; the closest scoped file outranks ancestors. Default to one root file and add nested files only for genuinely different subproject rules.When action policy is needed, keep one compact block:
For answer, explanation, review, diagnosis, or planning requests, inspect and report; do not implement unless asked.
For change, build, or fix requests, make bounded local changes and run relevant non-destructive checks.
Require confirmation for external writes, destructive or costly actions, and material scope expansion.
Adapt that policy to repository evidence. Name safe local actions and any domain-specific exception; do not scatter duplicates.
Include only needed structure/scope, commands, code/test conventions, security/data constraints, and collaboration/release rules. Keep product positioning and human installation walkthroughs in human docs unless an agent needs a specific command.
Add orchestration guidance only for workflows the repository actually uses. For bounded automation, specify the stage, allowed tools, output/evidence schema, concurrency or retry limits, stopping condition, and the handoff to semantic judgment or approval. Avoid generic “use tools efficiently” rules.
In review mode, prioritize wrong commands, stale paths, conflicting scope, unsafe authority, and missing verification. Each finding needs severity, location, evidence, and a specific replacement. If no findings remain, say so and identify material evidence gaps.
development
Score or compare one or more agent skills across trigger clarity, workflow actionability, safety boundaries, verification rigor, incremental knowledge value, and leanness. Use only when the user explicitly asks for ratings, numerical quality scores, rubric-based scorecards, or scored comparisons; use creating-agent-skills for unscored reviews or revisions.
development
Assess or improve an existing codebase's architecture when the user asks about module boundaries, coupling, scattered ownership, testability, change locality, deep modules, seams, or behavior-preserving structural refactoring. Use for cross-module design rather than ordinary diff review or a confirmed edge-case bug fix.
development
Perform read-only security audits, vulnerability assessments, or threat-focused reviews of diffs, pull requests, code paths, or explicitly scoped repositories when security is the primary objective or acceptance criterion. Use reviewing-code for ordinary review with baseline security coverage and hardening-code-paths for fixing confirmed findings.
development
Run iterative multi-reviewer panels over a code diff, verify their findings, apply explicitly authorized fixes, and re-review the updated change until it passes or reaches a stopping condition. Use when the user asks for a panel loop, multi-model code-review consensus, or a review-fix-re-review cycle.