agent-development▌
jezweb/claude-skills · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
$22
Agent Development for Claude Code
Build effective custom agents for Claude Code with proper delegation, tool access, and prompt design.
Agent Description Pattern
The description field determines whether Claude will automatically delegate tasks.
Strong Trigger Pattern
---
name: agent-name
description: |
[Role] specialist. MUST BE USED when [specific triggers].
Use PROACTIVELY for [task category].
Keywords: [trigger words]
tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash
model: sonnet
---
Weak vs Strong Descriptions
| Weak (won't auto-delegate) | Strong (auto-delegates) |
|---|---|
| "Analyzes screenshots for issues" | "Visual QA specialist. MUST BE USED when analyzing screenshots. Use PROACTIVELY for visual QA." |
| "Runs Playwright scripts" | "Playwright specialist. MUST BE USED when running Playwright scripts. Use PROACTIVELY for browser automation." |
Key phrases:
- "MUST BE USED when..."
- "Use PROACTIVELY for..."
- Include trigger keywords
Delegation Mechanisms
- Explicit:
Task tool subagent_type: "agent-name"- always works - Automatic: Claude matches task to agent description - requires strong phrasing
Session restart required after creating/modifying agents.
Tool Access Principle
If an agent doesn't need Bash, don't give it Bash.
| Agent needs to... | Give tools | Don't give |
|---|---|---|
| Create files only | Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep | Bash |
| Run scripts/CLIs | Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash | — |
| Read/audit only | Read, Glob, Grep | Write, Edit, Bash |
Why? Models default to cat > file << 'EOF' heredocs instead of Write tool. Each bash command requires approval, causing dozens of prompts per agent run.
Allowlist Pattern
Instead of restricting Bash, allowlist safe commands in .claude/settings.json:
{
"permissions": {
"allow": [
"Write", "Edit", "WebFetch(domain:*)",
"Bash(cd *)", "Bash(cp *)", "Bash(mkdir *)", "Bash(ls *)",
"Bash(cat *)", "Bash(head *)", "Bash(tail *)", "Bash(grep *)",
"Bash(diff *)", "Bash(mv *)", "Bash(touch *)", "Bash(file *)"
]
}
}
Model Selection (Quality First)
Don't downgrade quality to work around issues - fix root causes instead.
| Model | Use For |
|---|---|
| Opus | Creative work (page building, design, content) - quality matters |
| Sonnet | Most agents - content, code, research (default) |
| Haiku | Only script runners where quality doesn't matter |
Memory Limits
Root Cause Fix (REQUIRED)
Add to ~/.bashrc or ~/.zshrc:
export NODE_OPTIONS="--max-old-space-size=16384"
Increases Node.js heap from 4GB to 16GB.
Parallel Limits (Even With Fix)
| Agent Type | Max Parallel | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Any agents | 2-3 | Context accumulates; batch then pause |
| Heavy creative (Opus) | 1-2 | Uses more memory |
Recovery
source ~/.bashrcor restart terminalNODE_OPTIONS="--max-old-space-size=16384" claude- Check what files exist, continue from there
Sub-Agent vs Remote API
Always prefer Task sub-agents over remote API calls.
| Aspect | Remote API Call | Task Sub-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Tool access | None | Full (Read, Grep, Write, Bash) |
| File reading | Must pass all content in prompt | Can read files iteratively |
| Cross-referencing | Single context window | Can reason across documents |
| Decision quality | Generic suggestions | Specific decisions with rationale |
| Output quality | ~100 lines typical | 600+ lines with specifics |
// ❌ WRONG - Remote API call
const response = await fetch('https://api.anthropic.com/v1/messages', {...})
// ✅ CORRECT - Use Task tool
// Invoke Task with subagent_type: "general-purpose"
Declarative Over Imperative
Describe what to accomplish, not how to use tools.
Wrong (Imperative)
### Check for placeholders
```bash
grep -r "PLACEHOLDER:" build/*.html
### Right (Declarative)
```markdown
### Check for placeholders
Search all HTML files in build/ for:
- PLACEHOLDER: comments
- TODO or TBD markers
- Template brackets like [Client Name]
Any match = incomplete content.
What to Include
| Include | Skip |
|---|---|
| Task goal and context | Explicit bash/tool commands |
| Input file paths | "Use X tool to..." |
| Output file paths and format | Step-by-step tool invocations |
| Success/failure criteria | Shell pipeline syntax |
| Blocking checks (prerequisites) | Micromanaged workflows |
| Quality checklists |
Self-Documentation Principle
"Agents that won't have your context must be able to reproduce the behaviour independently."
Every improvement must be encoded into the agent's prompt, not left as implicit knowledge.
What to Encode
| Discovery | Where to Capture |
|---|---|
| Bug fix pattern | Agent's "Corrections" or "Common Issues" section |
| Quality requirement | Agent's "Quality Checklist" section |
| File path convention | Agent's "Output" section |
| Tool usage pattern | Agent's "Process" section |
| Blocking prerequisite | Agent's "Blocking Check" section |
Test: Would a Fresh Agent Succeed?
Before completing any agent improvement:
- Read the agent prompt as if you have no context
- Ask: Could a new session follow this and produce the same quality?
- If no: Add missing instructions, patterns, or references
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails |
|---|---|
| "As we discussed earlier..." | No prior context exists |
| Relying on files read during dev | Agent may not read same files |
| Assuming knowledge from errors | Agent won't see your debugging |
| "Just like the home page" | Agent hasn't built home page |
Flexibility vs Rigidity
Match specification level to task type. Over-specifying flexible agents makes them brittle.
| Task Type | Specification Level | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical/repetitive | High (rigid steps) | Version checker, file copier |
| Judgment-based | Low (guidelines) | Docs auditor, code reviewer |
| Creative | Minimal (goals only) | Content writer, brainstormer |
Signs You've Over-Specified
- Agent fills in template sections with "N/A"
- Agent tries to complete all phases even when irrelevant
- Scoring systems produce meaningless numbers
- Agent fails when scope doesn't match assumptions
- Long agents (>150 lines) for simple tasks
Flexible Agent Guidelines
DO:
- Describe what to look for, not exact steps
- Provide output examples, not rigid templates
- Include scope control ("if >30 items, ask user")
- Give escape hatches ("if unsure, flag for review")
- Keep under 100 lines for judgment tasks
DON'T:
- Require filling every section of a template
- Create elaborate weighted scoring systems
- List every possible check exhaustively
- Assume scope without asking
Example: Docs Auditor
Over-specified (bad):
## Phase 1: Discovery
Execute Glob for all .md files...
## Phase 6: Generate Report
| Category | Weight | Score | Weighted |
|----------|--------|-------|----------|
| Links | 20% | X/100 | X |
Right-sized (good):
## What to Check
- TODOs, broken links, stale versions
## Output Format
List issues by severity. Include file:line and fix.
## Scope Control
If >30 files, ask user which to focus on.
Agent Prompt Structure
Effective agent prompts include:
## Your Role
[What the agent does]
## Blocking Check
[Prerequisites that must exist]
## Input
[What files to read]
## Process
[Step-by-step with encoded learnings]
## Output
[Exact file paths and formats]
## Quality Checklist
[Verification steps including learned gotchas]
## Common Issues
[Patterns discovered during development]
Pipeline Agents
When inserting a new agent into a numbered pipeline (e.g., HTML-01 → HTML-05 → HTML-11):
| Must Update | What |
|---|---|
| New agent | "Workflow Position" diagram + "Next" field |
| Predecessor agent | Its "Next" field to point to new agent |
Common bug: New agent is "orphaned" because predecessor still points to old next agent.
Verification:
grep -n "Next:.*→\|Then.*runs next" .claude/agents/*.md
The Sweet Spot
Best use case: Tasks that are repetitive but require judgment.
Example: Auditing 70 skills manually = tedious. But each audit needs intelligence (check docs, compare versions, decide what to fix). Perfect for parallel agents with clear instructions.
Not good for:
- Simple tasks (just do them)
- Highly creative tasks (need human direction)
- Tasks requiring cross-file coordination (agents work independently)
Effective Prompt Template
For each [item]:
1. Read [source file]
2. Verify with [external check - npm view, API call, etc.]
3. Check [authoritative source]
4. Score/evaluate
5. FIX issues found ← Critical instruction
Key elements:
- "FIX issues found" - Without this, agents only report. With it, they take action.
- Exact file paths - Prevents ambiguity
- Output format template - Ensures consistent, parseable reports
- Batch size ~5 items - Enough work to be efficient, not so much that failures cascade
Workflow Pattern
1. ME: Launch 2-3 parallel agents with identical prompt, different item lists
2. AGENTS: Work in parallel (read → verify → check → edit → report)
3. AGENTS: Return structured reports (score, status, fixes applied, files modified)
4. ME: Review changes (git status, spot-check diffs)
5. ME: Commit in batches with meaningful changelog
6. ME: Push and update progress tracking
Why agents don't commit: Allows human review, batching, and clean commit history.
Signs a Task Fits This Pattern
Good fit:
- Same steps repeated for many items
- Each item requires judgment (not just transformation)
- Items are independent (no cross-item dependencies)
- Clear success criteria (score, pass/fail, etc.)
- Authoritative source exists to verify against
Bad fit:
- Items depend on each other's results
- Requires creative/subjective decisions
- Single complex task (use regular agent instead)
- Needs human input mid-process
Quick Reference
Agent Frontmatter Template
---
name: my-agent
description: |
[Role] specialist. MUST BE USED when [triggers].
Use PROACTIVELY for [task category].
Keywords: [trigger words]
tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash
model: sonnet
---
Fix Bash Approval Spam
- Remove Bash from tools if not needed
- Put critical instructions FIRST (right after frontmatter)
- Use allowlists in
.claude/settings.json
Memory Crash Recovery
how to use agent-developmentHow to use agent-development on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
1Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add agent-development
2Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
$npx skills add https://github.com/jezweb/claude-skills --skill agent-developmentThe skills CLI fetches agent-development from GitHub repository jezweb/claude-skills and configures it for Cursor.
3Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
◆ Which agents do you want to install to?││ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────│ • Amp│ • Antigravity│ • Cline│ • Codex│ ●Cursor(selected)│ • Cursor│ • Windsurf4Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
.cursor/skills/agent-developmentReload or restart Cursor to activate agent-development. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /agent-development) or your agent's skill management interface.
⚠Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
Additional Resources
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
GET_STARTED →Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
✓Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
✓Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
✓Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
✓Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviewsRatings
4.8★★★★★57 reviews- ★★★★★James Desai· Dec 28, 2024
agent-development fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Mei Flores· Dec 24, 2024
I recommend agent-development for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Isabella Jain· Dec 20, 2024
Keeps context tight: agent-development is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Dhruvi Jain· Dec 16, 2024
agent-development fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Mei Torres· Dec 8, 2024
Registry listing for agent-development matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Nikhil Chen· Nov 19, 2024
agent-development is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Isabella Perez· Nov 15, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: agent-development is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Nikhil Menon· Nov 11, 2024
We added agent-development from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Oshnikdeep· Nov 7, 2024
agent-development is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Mei Thomas· Nov 7, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: agent-development is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
showing 1-10 of 57
1 / 6