Results for “agent-architecture”

Autonomous spec-driven development agent. Syncs DEV_SPEC.md into chapter-based reference files, identifies the next pending task from the schedule, implements code following spec architecture and patterns, runs tests with up to 3 auto-fix rounds, and persists progress with atomic commits. Use when user says "auto code", "自动开发", "自动写代码", "auto dev", "一键开发", "autopilot", or wants fully automated spec-to-code workflow.

Orchestrates end-to-end autonomous AI research projects using a two-loop architecture. The inner loop runs rapid experiment iterations with clear optimization targets. The outer loop synthesizes results, identifies patterns, and steers research direction. Routes to domain-specific skills for execution, supports continuous agent operation via Claude Code /loop and OpenClaw heartbeat, and produces research presentations and papers. Use when starting a research project, running autonomous experiments, or managing a multi-hypothesis research effort.

Legacy-project style inheritance skill. Use when the user types /inherit-legacy-style, or when onboarding an AI coding agent onto a hand-written legacy project and you need to prevent "style drift" (the model imposing its pretrained mainstream idioms onto the project). Language- and framework-agnostic — it aligns meta-architecture only, not syntax. Once run, it becomes a behavioral constraint on all subsequent coding tasks. Do NOT use for pure research or one-off questions unrelated to code-style alignment.

Model a Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) IC from its datasheet or system specs using Mixed-Signal Blockset. Without this skill, agents universally select the wrong solver and produce non-functional PLL models — 100% of unguided attempts fail. Covers Integer-N, Fractional-N, Dual Modulus architectures, loop filter design, lock time optimization, VCO phase noise configuration, and msbPllArchitectures/msbPllFoundation block assembly. Use when: PLL modeling, frequency synthesizer design, phase noise simulation, lock time analysis, charge pump design, loop filter tuning, datasheet-to-model, Mixed-Signal Blockset PLL, msbPllArchitectures.

Two-party working posture — user as director, agent as executor. Every fork, tradeoff, and taste choice is surfaced via batched AskUserQuestion with structural framing, a recommended default, and concrete previews when comparison is visual, so the human steers direction while the agent handles implementation. Eliminates the review-bottleneck (no giant diff to approve at the end — review is distributed across picks) and prevents codebase-understanding debt (the user remembers the architecture because they picked it). Use whenever the user invokes /duet, or says "work with me", "ask before", "check with me", "I want to decide", "don't assume", "human-in-the-loop", "co-author", "pair with me", "duet", or whenever a task clearly involves aesthetic, architectural, or irreversible strategic decisions — even without those exact words. Pair with the Duet output style to minimize cognitive load between picks.

Maintains persistent project context for Business Central AL extensions across sessions, developers, and AI agents. Combines two complementary mechanisms: Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) that capture why technical decisions were made, and Session Handoff documents that capture where the project is right now. Generates, updates, and queries both document types. Use this skill whenever starting a new coding session on an existing project, ending a session and need to document progress, onboarding a new developer or AI agent to an existing codebase, explaining why a technical decision was made, wondering why something is designed a certain way, resuming work after a break, or handing off work between team members. Also trigger when the user says 'document this decision', 'why is this designed like this', 'where did we leave off', 'catch me up', 'what was decided', 'create an ADR', 'end of session', 'handoff', or 'context for next session'.

Expert strategy advisor for products built on LLMs or agents — not general product strategy (see `product-strategy` for that). Use this — proactively and without waiting to be asked — whenever choosing where to apply AI in a product, deciding between RAG and fine-tuning, designing how much autonomy an AI feature should have, evaluating whether an AI feature is actually defensible, or deciding whether to add AI to a feature at all. Also triggers for: "should this be an agent or a simple LLM call", "how much autonomy should this feature have", "RAG vs fine-tuning", "is this AI feature defensible", "our AI feature keeps hallucinating and users don't trust it", "should we build this with AI or just ship it deterministic", "AI product wedge", "what happens to this feature when the models get better", "human-in-the-loop design for AI features". Produces a decision-focused brief: the wedge, the architecture choice, the autonomy level, and the defensibility bet — each with an explicit trade-off.

AI/LLM red-team assessment using the OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025) + OWASP AI Testing Guide (AITG v1, Nov 2025) frameworks, plus OWASP MCP Top 10 runtime testing for agentic/MCP targets. Tests prompt injection, jailbreaks, system prompt leakage, sensitive data extraction, excessive agency, improper output handling, model extraction, content bias, evasion, membership inference, MCP token exposure, MCP command injection, and more. Uses four tools in combination: FuzzyAI (single-turn jailbreak fuzzing), PyRIT (multi-turn orchestrated attacks), Garak (probe-based vulnerability scanning), and promptfoo (plugin-based red-team evaluation). Each tool covers different OWASP categories; running them together gives systematic coverage. Includes a conditional MCP reconnaissance phase and a post-access AI infrastructure phase (chained from /post-exploit). Produces: OWASP LLM Top 10 + AITG + MCP coverage matrix, findings per category, architecture diagram of the AI system, PoCs for confirmed exploits. Chains into /gh-export for