LLM Ops

LLM-OPS -- IA de Producao

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/llm-ops from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

LLM-OPS -- IA de Producao

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: How It Works, Arquitetura Rag Completa, Pipeline De Query Com Rag, Escolha Do Vector Db, Pgvector, Estrutura De Prompt De Elite.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• When you need specialized assistance with this domain
• The task is unrelated to llm ops
• A simpler, more specific tool can handle the request
• The user needs general-purpose assistance without domain expertise
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: LLM Operations -- RAG, embeddings, vector databases, fine-tuning, prompt engineering avancado, custos de LLM, evals de qualidade e arquiteturas de IA para producao.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Overview

LLM Operations -- RAG, embeddings, vector databases, fine-tuning, prompt engineering avancado, custos de LLM, evals de qualidade e arquiteturas de IA para producao. Ativar para: implementar RAG, criar pipeline de embeddings, Pinecone/Chroma/pgvector, fine-tuning, prompt engineering, reducao de custos de LLM, evals, cache semantico, streaming, agents.

Imported: How It Works

A diferenca entre um prototipo de IA e um produto de IA e operabilidade. LLM-Ops e a engenharia que torna IA confiavel, escalavel e economica.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @llm-ops to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @llm-ops against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @llm-ops for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @llm-ops using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Provide clear, specific context about your project and requirements
• Review all suggestions before applying them to production code
• Combine with other complementary skills for comprehensive analysis
• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Best Practices

• Provide clear, specific context about your project and requirements
• Review all suggestions before applying them to production code
• Combine with other complementary skills for comprehensive analysis

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/llm-ops, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @00-andruia-consultant - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @00-andruia-consultant-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Pipeline De Indexacao

from anthropic import Anthropic import chromadb

client = Anthropic()
chroma = chromadb.PersistentClient(path="./chroma_db")

def chunk_text(text, chunk_size=500, overlap=50):
    words = text.split()
    chunks = []
    for i in range(0, len(words), chunk_size - overlap):
        chunk = " ".join(words[i:i + chunk_size])
        if chunk: chunks.append(chunk)
    return chunks

def index_document(doc_id, content_text, metadata=None):
    chunks = chunk_text(content_text)
    ids = [f"{doc_id}_chunk_{i}" for i in range(len(chunks))]
    collection.upsert(ids=ids, documents=chunks)
    return len(chunks)

Imported: Arquitetura Rag Completa

[Documentos] -> [Chunking] -> [Embeddings] -> [Vector DB] | [Query] -> [Embed query] -> [Semantic Search] -> [Top K chunks] | [LLM + Context] -> [Resposta]

Imported: Pipeline De Query Com Rag

def rag_query(query, top_k=5, system=None): results = collection.query( query_texts=[query], n_results=top_k, include=["documents", "metadatas", "distances"]) context_parts = [] for doc, meta, dist in zip(results["documents"][0], results["metadatas"][0], results["distances"][0]): if dist < 1.5: src = meta.get("source", "doc") context_parts.append(f"[Fonte: {src}] {doc}") context = "

".join(context_parts) response = client.messages.create( model="claude-opus-4-20250805", max_tokens=1024, system=system or "Responda baseado no contexto.", messages=[{"role": "user", "content": f"Contexto: {context}

{query}"}]) return response.content[0].text

Imported: Escolha Do Vector Db

Imported: Pgvector

CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS vector; CREATE TABLE knowledge_embeddings ( id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(), content TEXT NOT NULL, embedding vector(1536), metadata JSONB, created_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW() ); CREATE INDEX ON knowledge_embeddings USING ivfflat (embedding vector_cosine_ops) WITH (lists = 100); SELECT content, 1 - (embedding <=> QUERY_VECTOR) AS similarity FROM knowledge_embeddings ORDER BY similarity DESC LIMIT 5;

Imported: Estrutura De Prompt De Elite

Componentes do system prompt Auri:

• Identidade: Nome (Auri), Tom (Natural, caloroso, direto), Plataforma (Amazon Alexa)
• Regras: Maximo 3 paragrafos curtos, sem markdown, linguagem conversacional
• Capacidades: analise de negocios, conselho baseado em dados, criatividade
• Limitacoes: sem internet tempo real, sem transacoes financeiras
• Personalizacao: {user_name}, {user_preferences}, {relevant_history}

Imported: Chain-Of-Thought

def cot_analysis(problem: str) -> str: steps = [ "1. O que exatamente esta sendo pedido?", "2. Que informacoes sao criticas para resolver?", "3. Quais abordagens possiveis existem?", "4. Qual abordagem e melhor e por que?", "5. Quais riscos ou limitacoes existem?", ] prompt = f"Analise passo a passo:

PROBLEMA: {problem}

" prompt += " ".join(steps) + "

Resposta final (concisa, para voz):" return call_claude(prompt)

Imported: Cache Semantico

class SemanticCache: def init(self, similarity_threshold=0.95): self.threshold = similarity_threshold self.cache = {}

    def get_cached(self, query, embedding):
        for cached_emb, (response, _) in self.cache.items():
            if cosine_similarity(embedding, cached_emb) >= self.threshold:
                return response
        return None

    def set_cache(self, query, embedding, response):
        self.cache[tuple(embedding)] = (response, query)

Imported: Estimativa De Custos Claude

PRICING = { "claude-opus-4-20250805": {"input": 15.00, "output": 75.00}, "claude-sonnet-4-5": {"input": 3.00, "output": 15.00}, "claude-haiku-3-5": {"input": 0.80, "output": 4.00}, }

def estimate_monthly_cost(model, avg_input, avg_output, req_per_day):
    p = PRICING[model]
    daily = (avg_input + avg_output) * req_per_day / 1e6
    monthly = daily * p["input"] * 30
    return {"model": model, "monthly_cost": "USD %.2f" % monthly}

Imported: Framework De Avaliacao

from anthropic import Anthropic client = Anthropic()

def evaluate_response(question, expected, actual, criteria):
    criteria_text = "

".join(f"- {c}" for c in criteria) eval_prompt = ( f"Avalie a resposta do assistente de IA.

" f"PERGUNTA: {question} RESPOSTA ESPERADA: {expected} " f"RESPOSTA ATUAL: {actual}

Criterios: {criteria_text}

" "Nota 0-10 e justificativa para cada criterio. Formato JSON." ) response = client.messages.create( model="claude-haiku-3-5", max_tokens=1024, messages=[{"role": "user", "content": eval_prompt}] ) import json return json.loads(response.content[0].text)

AURI_EVALS = [
    {
        "question": "Quais sao os principais riscos de abrir startup agora?",
        "criteria": ["precisao_factual", "relevancia", "clareza_para_voz"]
    },
]

Imported: 6. Comandos

Imported: Common Pitfalls

• Using this skill for tasks outside its domain expertise
• Applying recommendations without understanding your specific context
• Not providing enough project context for accurate analysis

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.