# Improve Agent Workflow > Diagnose and improve how coding agents work in an existing project: project skills, AGENTS instructions, prompt and context delivery, tools or CLI surfaces, hooks, verification, handoffs, and agent-facing workflow. Use when an agent repeatedly misses scope or instructions, the owning agent-facing surface is unclear, several surfaces interact, agent experience is costly or confusing, or a user asks Codex to improve how agents work in a company repository. Also use when the owning surface is a tool or CLI contract: to review, audit, fix, or improve a CLI's commands, arguments, help, output, or how agents invoke it from a shell. Triggers include "review this CLI", "audit the command interface", "make this CLI agent-friendly", "CLI/命令/参数审查", and agent invocation ergonomics. Start from observed project evidence, change the smallest owning surface, and verify behavior through the ordinary agent entry path. If the issue is already localized to a skill's trigger, prompt, context layering, or behavior evaluation and a - Skill: `lidessen/improve-agent-workflow` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 8 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add lidessen/improve-agent-workflow` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/lidessen/improve-agent-workflow/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: lidessen (https://skillmd.com/u/lidessen) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/lidessen/improve-agent-workflow --- # Improve Agent Workflow ## Principle expression **Primary:** P04 **Supporting:** P02, P08, P15 ## Scope Own one judgment: **given an observed failure or friction in how agents work in this project, which owning surface should change, and what is the smallest change that improves the required action under the real runtime?** The object is the project's agent-facing work system, not the whole project. Possible owning surfaces include a project skill, governing instruction, context-delivery path, prompt, tool or CLI contract, hook or adapter, verification gate, and handoff record. Do not optimize product code, team policy, CI, or business process unless it is directly part of the evidenced agent action. Do not create a central orchestrator or require the project to adopt this collection's vocabulary. Use this skill as the external diagnostic entry when the owning surface is unclear or several surfaces interact. When the user already names a known owner and a dedicated method for it is available, enter that method directly. After diagnosis selects an owner, hand off the domain judgment rather than keeping a second coordinating layer active. This package is independently usable. It carries a read-only Sequence snapshot in `references/sequence.md`; the target project does not need this repository or its other skills. ## Principle source Use a host `principles/SEQUENCE.md` and matching interpretations when the host declares them. Otherwise use this package's snapshot. Before diagnosing the owner, read the Sequence and exactly the P04, P02, P08, and P15 interpretation sections from the same source. Do not load other interpretations by default. A host source governs its project; do not merge it with or overwrite it from the snapshot. ## Start Recover the concrete problem before naming a solution: ```text Target agent, runtime, and ordinary entry path: Required action or judgment: Observed failure, friction, or cost: Source evidence and current owner: Hard constraints and human authority: Smallest suspected change: Observation that would disconfirm it: ``` If no recurring or consequential agent-action gap is evidenced, answer locally or perform the ordinary task. Do not manufacture an agent-workflow project. ## Dispatch - When the owning surface is the project's tool or CLI contract — the user asks to review, audit, fix, or improve a CLI, its commands, arguments, output, or how agents invoke it, whether read-only or authorized — read and follow `commands/cli-surface.md`. - When the user asks to inspect, assess, or recommend without authorizing changes, read and follow `commands/audit.md`. - When the user asks to fix, optimize, implement, or improve the project, read and follow `commands/improve.md`. - With ambiguous intent, begin with the read-only audit and stop before edits. ## Domain vocabulary Read [the agent-work model](references/agent-work-model.md) when `agent workflow`, `owning surface`, `ordinary entry path`, or the difference among guidance, capability, verification, and acceptance is unclear. These terms are diagnostic relations, not a required project architecture or lifecycle. ## Core method 1. **Observe the actual work.** Read the target project's governing sources, the relevant agent surface, and evidence from a real or reproducible task. Separate the observed behavior from its proposed cause. A polished prompt, passing unit test, or agent self-report is not behavior evidence by itself. 2. **Trace the action journey.** Follow the task from human intent through discovery, guidance, action or tool use, verification, and handoff. This is an inspection model, not a mandatory pipeline. Read [the agent-work model](references/agent-work-model.md) only when the owning surface is unclear or several surfaces interact. 3. **Find the principal contradiction and owner.** Identify the one mismatch whose resolution changes downstream behavior. Distinguish missing or wrong domain truth from failed delivery, weak skill expression, tool friction, absent verification, and authority confusion. Route truth and acceptance to their actual owners; an agent-workflow change must not invent either. 4. **Compare the unchanged case with minimal interventions.** Prefer correcting an existing owner over adding another skill, file, hook, tool, or workflow. For each additional surface, name the decision it changes and the burden it adds. Retain hard constraints and normal project conventions. 5. **Act only within authorization.** For an audit, produce evidence and a smallest recommendation. For an improvement, change the smallest owning surface and its directly required consumers. If that surface is a skill, load [the skill-surface guide](references/skill-surface.md); if it is a tool or CLI contract, read `commands/cli-surface.md`; do not load either for unrelated workflow work. 6. **Verify behavior through the ordinary path.** Re-run the representative task or the closest safe probe from the same entry surface. Add a boundary case that should not trigger or overreach. State what would falsify the improvement claim. Structural checks support packaging but cannot replace action evidence. 7. **Leave proportional inheritance.** Report the observation, changed owner, evidence, residual uncertainty, and human decision still required. Add a durable record only when a later actor must recover the reason, boundary, or verification result; do not create a standing improvement bureaucracy. ## Ownership boundaries - **Domain source:** owns what is true or required. This skill may reveal a gap but must not silently author policy, architecture, or acceptance criteria. - **Agent instruction or skill:** owns a reusable judgment at activation. It does not enforce runtime capability or accept its own result. - **Context path:** owns when and how named source material reaches the agent; copies and summaries remain projections. - **Tool, CLI, hook, or adapter:** owns mechanical capability and raw evidence, not semantic acceptance. When the selected surface is a CLI contract, the review method in `commands/cli-surface.md` owns the concrete judgment. Check the current runtime's documentation rather than embedding vendor-specific configuration as universal doctrine. - **Verifier and human committer:** decide whether durable work is accepted. The actor that made the change may prepare evidence but cannot manufacture independent approval. ## Completion standard The work is ready when it identifies the concrete agent action, observed gap, principal contradiction, owning surface, smallest change or recommendation, ordinary-path action evidence, boundary evidence, and residual human decision. If the result only improves prose, adds machinery, or passes a synthetic check without changing the named action, report it as inconclusive and continue from the observed failure.