Mohit Aggarwal Agent Spec Skill
An agent is a model plus tools plus a loop — and the danger lives in the tools and the loop, not the model. This skill specifies an agent so its authority is explicit: what it can do, what needs a human yes, and what happens when it's wrong. Scope and guardrails first; cleverness second.
Required Inputs
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:
- Job to be done — the outcome the agent owns, and the boundary of its authority.
- Tools/actions — what it can call (read APIs, write actions, code execution), and which are irreversible.
- Autonomy level — fully autonomous, propose-then-approve, or co-pilot.
- Risk surface — what's the worst thing a wrong action could do (spend money, send a message, delete data)?
- Success definition & escalation — how "done" is judged, and when it must hand off to a human.
Output Format
Agent Spec: [name]
1. Goal & scope — the job in one sentence; explicit non-goals and authority limits.
2. Tools / actions — a table; mark each action's reversibility and required permission.
| Tool | Purpose | Reversible? | Gate |
|---|---|---|---|
| search_kb | read context | yes | none |
| send_email | notify | no | human approval |
3. Control loop — plan → act → observe → reflect; the stopping condition; and a hard max-steps / max-cost budget so it can't loop forever.
4. Guardrails & approval gates — which actions require a human yes (default: anything irreversible, outbound, or spending), input/output validation, and allow/deny lists. Pair irreversible actions with a dry-run preview (see action-runner).
5. Memory & state — what it remembers within a task vs. across tasks, and where (link a professional-brain for durable memory).
6. Escalation & handoff — the triggers that stop the agent and route to a human (low confidence, repeated failure, out-of-scope request, high-risk action).
7. Evaluation — task success rate, action correctness, and safety (false-action rate). Define with an ai-eval-plan, and test on adversarial/trap tasks.
8. Failure handling — timeouts, tool errors, hallucinated tool calls, and the safe default (stop and ask, never guess on a high-risk action).
Quality Checks
- Every tool is marked reversible/irreversible, and every irreversible action has a human gate
- There is a hard max-steps and max-cost budget — the loop cannot run unbounded
- Escalation triggers are explicit (confidence, repeated failure, out-of-scope, high-risk)
- The safe default on uncertainty is "stop and ask", not "guess and act"
- Evaluation includes a safety metric (wrong/unauthorised actions), not just task success
- Non-goals and authority limits are stated, not implied
Anti-Patterns
- Do not give an agent irreversible actions without an approval gate — autonomy and irreversibility together is how agents cause real damage
- Do not omit a step/cost budget — an agent that can loop is an agent that can rack up cost or thrash forever
- Do not measure only task success — an agent that completes the task by taking a wrong action has failed
- Do not let the agent invent tool calls or arguments — validate against the schema and fail safe
- Do not skip the "what's the worst case" analysis — the risk surface determines how many guardrails you need
Based On
Tool-using / agentic design practice — bounded control loops, least-privilege tools, human-in-the-loop approval, and safety evaluation.