<!-- SKILL SOP IMPROVEMENT v1.0 -->

Skill Execution Criteria

When to Use This Skill

• Creating new specialist agents with domain-specific expertise
• Refining existing agent system prompts for better performance
• Designing multi-agent coordination systems
• Implementing role-based agent hierarchies
• Building production-ready agents with embedded domain knowledge

When NOT to Use This Skill

• For simple one-off tasks that don't need agent specialization
• When existing agents already cover the required domain
• For casual conversational interactions without systematic requirements
• When the task is better suited for a slash command or micro-skill

Success Criteria

• primary_outcome: "Production-ready agent with optimized system prompt, clear role definition, and validated performance"
• quality_threshold: 0.9
• verification_method: "Agent successfully completes domain-specific tasks with consistent high-quality output, passes validation tests, and integrates with Claude Agent SDK"

Edge Cases

• case: "Vague agent requirements" handling: "Use Phase 1 (Initial Analysis) to research domain, identify patterns, and clarify scope before proceeding"
• case: "Overlapping agent capabilities" handling: "Conduct agent registry search, identify gaps vs duplicates, propose consolidation or specialization"
• case: "Agent needs multiple conflicting personas" handling: "Decompose into multiple focused agents with clear coordination pattern"

Skill Guardrails

NEVER:

• "Create agents without deep domain research (skipping Phase 1 undermines quality)"
• "Use generic prompts without evidence-based techniques (CoT, few-shot, role-based)"
• "Skip validation testing (Phase 3) before considering agent production-ready"
• "Create agents that duplicate existing registry agents without justification" ALWAYS:
• "Complete all 4 phases: Analysis -> Prompt Engineering -> Testing -> Integration"
• "Apply evidence-based prompting: Chain-of-Thought for reasoning, few-shot for patterns, clear role definition"
• "Validate with diverse test cases and measure against quality criteria"
• "Document agent capabilities, limitations, and integration points"

Evidence-Based Execution

self_consistency: "After agent creation, test with same task multiple times to verify consistent outputs and reasoning quality" program_of_thought: "Decompose agent creation into: 1) Domain analysis, 2) Capability mapping, 3) Prompt architecture, 4) Test design, 5) Validation, 6) Integration" plan_and_solve: "Plan: Research domain + identify capabilities -> Execute: Build prompts + test cases -> Verify: Multi-run consistency + edge case handling"

<!-- END SKILL SOP IMPROVEMENT -->

Agent Creator - Enhanced with 4-Phase SOP Methodology

This skill provides the official comprehensive framework for creating specialized AI agents, integrating the proven 4-phase methodology from Desktop .claude-flow with Claude Agent SDK implementation and evidence-based prompting techniques.

When to Use This Skill

Use agent-creator for:

• Creating project-specialized agents with deeply embedded domain knowledge
• Building agents for recurring tasks requiring consistent behavior
• Rewriting existing agents to optimize performance
• Creating multi-agent workflows with sequential or parallel coordination
• Agents that will integrate with MCP servers and Claude Flow

The 4-Phase Agent Creation Methodology

Source: Desktop .claude-flow/ official SOP documentation Total Time: 2.5-4 hours per agent (first-time), 1.5-2 hours (speed-run)

This methodology was developed through systematic reverse engineering of fog-compute agent creation and validated through production use.

Phase 1: Initial Analysis & Intent Decoding (30-60 minutes)

Objective: Deep domain understanding through systematic research, not assumptions.

Activities:

1. Domain Breakdown

   • What problem does this agent solve?
   • What are the key challenges in this domain?
   • What patterns do human experts use?
   • What are common failure modes?

2. Technology Stack Mapping

   • What tools, frameworks, libraries are used?
   • What file types, formats, protocols?
   • What integrations or APIs?
   • What configuration patterns?

3. Integration Points

   • What MCP servers will this agent use?
   • What other agents will it coordinate with?
   • What data flows in/out?
   • What memory patterns needed?

Validation Gate:

• Can describe domain in specific, technical terms
• Identified 5+ key challenges
• Mapped technology stack comprehensively
• Clear on integration requirements

Outputs:

• Domain analysis document
• Technology stack inventory
• Integration requirements list

---

Phase 2: Meta-Cognitive Extraction (30-45 minutes)

Objective: Identify the cognitive expertise domains activated when you reason about this agent's tasks.

Activities:

1. Expertise Domain Identification

   • What knowledge domains are activated when you think about this role?
   • What heuristics, patterns, rules-of-thumb?
   • What decision-making frameworks?
   • What quality standards?

2. Agent Specification Creation

   # Agent Specification: [Name]
   
   ## Role & Expertise
   - Primary role: [Specific title]
   - Expertise domains: [List activated domains]
   - Cognitive patterns: [Heuristics used]
   
   ## Core Capabilities
   1. [Capability with specific examples]
   2. [Capability with specific examples]
   ...
   
   ## Decision Frameworks
   - When X, do Y because Z
   - Always check A before B
   - Never skip validation of C
   
   ## Quality Standards
   - Output must meet [criteria]
   - Performance measured by [metrics]
   - Failure modes to prevent: [list]
   

3. Supporting Artifacts

   • Create examples of good vs bad outputs
   • Document edge cases
   • List common pitfalls

Validation Gate:

• Identified 3+ expertise domains
• Documented 5+ decision heuristics
• Created complete agent specification
• Examples demonstrate quality standards

Outputs:

• Agent specification document
• Example outputs (good/bad)
• Edge case inventory

---

Phase 3: Agent Architecture Design (45-60 minutes)

Objective: Transform specification into production-ready base system prompt.

Activities:

1. System Prompt Structure Design

   # [AGENT NAME] - SYSTEM PROMPT v1.0
   
   ## 🎭 CORE IDENTITY
   
   I am a **[Role Title]** with comprehensive, deeply-ingrained knowledge of [domain]. Through systematic reverse engineering and domain expertise, I possess precision-level understanding of:
   
   - **[Domain Area 1]** - [Specific capabilities from Phase 2]
   - **[Domain Area 2]** - [Specific capabilities from Phase 2]
   - **[Domain Area 3]** - [Specific capabilities from Phase 2]
   
   My purpose is to [primary objective] by leveraging [unique expertise].
   
   ## 📋 UNIVERSAL COMMANDS I USE
   
   **File Operations**:
   - /file-read, /file-write, /glob-search, /grep-search
   WHEN: [Specific situations from domain analysis]
   HOW: [Exact patterns]
   
   **Git Operations**:
   - /git-status, /git-commit, /git-push
   WHEN: [Specific situations]
   HOW: [Exact patterns]
   
   **Communication & Coordination**:
   - /memory-store, /memory-retrieve
   - /agent-delegate, /agent-escalate
   WHEN: [Specific situations]
   HOW: [Exact patterns with namespace conventions]
   
   ## 🎯 MY SPECIALIST COMMANDS
   
   [List role-specific commands with exact syntax and examples]
   
   ## 🔧 MCP SERVER TOOLS I USE
   
   **Claude Flow MCP**:
   - mcp__claude-flow__agent_spawn
     WHEN: [Specific coordination scenarios]
     HOW: [Exact function call patterns]
   
   - mcp__claude-flow__memory_store
     WHEN: [Cross-agent data sharing]
     HOW: [Namespace pattern: agent-role/task-id/data-type]
   
   **[Other relevant MCP servers from Phase 1]**
   
   ## 🧠 COGNITIVE FRAMEWORK
   
   ### Self-Consistency Validation
   Before finalizing deliverables, I validate from multiple angles:
   1. [Domain-specific validation 1]
   2. [Domain-specific validation 2]
   3. [Cross-check with standards]
   
   ### Program-of-Thought Decomposition
   For complex tasks, I decompose BEFORE execution:
   1. [Domain-specific decomposition pattern]
   2. [Dependency analysis]
   3. [Risk assessment]
   
   ### Plan-and-Solve Execution
   My standard workflow:
   1. PLAN: [Domain-specific planning]
   2. VALIDATE: [Domain-specific validation]
   3. EXECUTE: [Domain-specific execution]
   4. VERIFY: [Domain-specific verification]
   5. DOCUMENT: [Memory storage patterns]
   
   ## 🚧 GUARDRAILS - WHAT I NEVER DO
   
   [From Phase 2 failure modes and edge cases]
   
   **[Failure Category 1]**:
   ❌ NEVER: [Dangerous pattern]
   WHY: [Consequences from domain knowledge]
   
   WRONG:
     [Bad example]
   
   CORRECT:
     [Good example]
   
   ## ✅ SUCCESS CRITERIA
   
   Task complete when:
   - [ ] [Domain-specific criterion 1]
   - [ ] [Domain-specific criterion 2]
   - [ ] [Domain-specific criterion 3]
   - [ ] Results stored in memory
   - [ ] Relevant agents notified
   
   ## 📖 WORKFLOW EXAMPLES
   
   ### Workflow 1: [Common Task Name from Phase 1]
   
   **Objective**: [What this achieves]
   
   **Step-by-Step Commands**:
   ```yaml
   Step 1: [Action]
     COMMANDS:
       - /[command-1] --params
       - /[command-2] --params
     OUTPUT: [Expected]
     VALIDATION: [Check]
   
   Step 2: [Next Action]
     COMMANDS:
       - /[command-3] --params
     OUTPUT: [Expected]
     VALIDATION: [Check]
   

   Timeline: [Duration] Dependencies: [Prerequisites]

2. Evidence-Based Technique Integration

   For each technique (from existing agent-creator skill):

   • Self-consistency: When to use, how to apply
   • Program-of-thought: Decomposition patterns
   • Plan-and-solve: Planning frameworks

   Integrate these naturally into the agent's methodology.

3. Quality Standards & Guardrails

   From Phase 2 failure modes, create explicit guardrails:

   • What patterns to avoid
   • What validations to always run
   • When to escalate vs. retry
   • Error handling protocols

Validation Gate:

• System prompt follows template structure
• All Phase 2 expertise embedded
• Evidence-based techniques integrated
• Guardrails cover identified failure modes
• 2+ workflow examples with exact commands

Outputs:

• Base system prompt (v1.0)
• Cognitive framework specification
• Guardrails documentation

---

Phase 4: Deep Technical Enhancement (60-90 minutes)

Objective: Reverse-engineer exact implementation patterns and document with precision.

Activities:

1. Code Pattern Extraction

   For technical agents, extract EXACT patterns from codebase:

   ## Code Patterns I Recognize
   
   ### Pattern: [Name]
   **File**: `path/to/file.py:123-156`
   
   ```python
   class ExamplePattern:
       def __init__(
           self,
           param1: Type = default,  # Line 125: Exact default
           param2: Type = default   # Line 126: Exact default
       ):
           # Extracted from actual implementation
           pass
   

   When I see this pattern, I know:

   • [Specific insight about architecture]
   • [Specific constraint or requirement]
   • [Common mistake to avoid]

2. Critical Failure Mode Documentation

   From experience and domain knowledge:

   ## Critical Failure Modes
   
   ### Failure: [Name]
   **Severity**: Critical/High/Medium
   **Symptoms**: [How to recognize]
   **Root Cause**: [Why it happens]
   **Prevention**:
     ❌ DON'T: [Bad pattern]
     ✅ DO: [Good pattern with exact code]
   
   **Detection**:
     ```bash
     # Exact command to detect this failure
     [command]
   

3. Integration Patterns

   Document exact MCP tool usage:

   ## MCP Integration Patterns
   
   ### Pattern: Cross-Agent Data Sharing
   ```javascript
   // Exact pattern for storing outputs
   mcp__claude-flow__memory_store({
     key: "marketing-specialist/campaign-123/audience-analysis",
     value: {
       segments: [...],
       targeting: {...},
       confidence: 0.89
     },
     ttl: 86400
   })
   

   Namespace Convention:

   • Format: {agent-role}/{task-id}/{data-type}
   • Example: backend-dev/api-v2/schema-design

4. Performance Metrics

   Define what to track:

   ## Performance Metrics I Track
   
   ```yaml
   Task Completion:
     - /memory-store --key "metrics/[my-role]/tasks-completed" --increment 1
     - /memory-store --key "metrics/[my-role]/task-[id]/duration" --value [ms]
   
   Quality:
     - validation-passes: [count successful validations]
     - escalations: [count when needed help]
     - error-rate: [failures / attempts]
   
   Efficiency:
     - commands-per-task: [avg commands used]
     - mcp-calls: [tool usage frequency]
   

   These metrics enable continuous improvement.

Validation Gate:

• Code patterns include file/line references
• Failure modes have detection + prevention
• MCP patterns show exact syntax
• Performance metrics defined
• Agent can self-improve through metrics

Outputs:

• Enhanced system prompt (v2.0)
• Code pattern library
• Failure mode handbook
• Integration pattern guide
• Metrics specification

---

Integrated Agent Creation Process

Combining 4-phase SOP with existing best practices:

Complete Workflow

1. Phase 1: Domain Analysis (30-60 min)

   • Research domain systematically
   • Map technology stack
   • Identify integration points
   • Output: Domain analysis doc

2. Phase 2: Expertise Extraction (30-45 min)

   • Identify cognitive domains
   • Create agent specification
   • Document decision frameworks
   • Output: Agent spec + examples

3. Phase 3: Architecture Design (45-60 min)

   • Draft base system prompt
   • Integrate evidence-based techniques
   • Add quality guardrails
   • Output: Base prompt v1.0

4. Phase 4: Technical Enhancement (60-90 min)

   • Extract code patterns
   • Document failure modes
   • Define MCP integrations
   • Add performance metrics
   • Output: Enhanced prompt v2.0

5. SDK Implementation (30-60 min)

   • Implement with Claude Agent SDK
   • Configure tools and permissions
   • Set up MCP servers
   • Output: Production agent

6. Testing & Validation (30-45 min)

   • Test typical cases
   • Test edge cases
   • Test error handling
   • Verify consistency
   • Output: Test report

7. Documentation & Packaging (15-30 min)

   • Create agent README
   • Document usage examples
   • Package supporting files
   • Output: Complete agent package

Total Time: 3.5-5.5 hours (first-time), 2-3 hours (speed-run)

---

Claude Agent SDK Implementation

Once system prompt is finalized, implement with SDK:

TypeScript Implementation

import { query, tool } from '@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk';
import { z } from 'zod';

// Custom domain-specific tools
const domainTool = tool({
  name: 'domain_operation',
  description: 'Performs domain-specific operation',
  parameters: z.object({
    param: z.string()
  }),
  handler: async ({ param }) => {
    // Implementation from Phase 4
    return { result: 'data' };
  }
});

// Agent configuration
for await (const message of query('Perform domain task', {
  model: 'claude-sonnet-4-5',
  systemPrompt: enhancedPromptV2,  // From Phase 4
  permissionMode: 'acceptEdits',
  allowedTools: ['Read', 'Write', 'Bash', domainTool],
  mcpServers: [{
    command: 'npx',
    args: ['claude-flow@alpha', 'mcp', 'start'],
    env: { ... }
  }],
  settingSources: ['user', 'project']
})) {
  console.log(message);
}

Python Implementation

from claude_agent_sdk import query, tool, ClaudeAgentOptions
import asyncio

@tool()
async def domain_operation(param: str) -> dict:
    """Domain-specific operation from Phase 4."""
    # Implementation
    return {"result": "data"}

async def run_agent():
    options = ClaudeAgentOptions(
        model='claude-sonnet-4-5',
        system_prompt=enhanced_prompt_v2,  # From Phase 4
        permission_mode='acceptEdits',
        allowed_tools=['Read', 'Write', 'Bash', domain_operation],
        mcp_servers=[{
            'command': 'npx',
            'args': ['claude-flow@alpha', 'mcp', 'start']
        }],
        setting_sources=['user', 'project']
    )

    async for message in query('Perform domain task', **options):
        print(message)

asyncio.run(run_agent())

---

Agent Specialization Patterns

From existing agent-creator skill, enhanced with 4-phase methodology:

Analytical Agents

Phase 1 Focus: Evidence evaluation patterns, data quality standards Phase 2 Focus: Analytical heuristics, validation frameworks Phase 3 Focus: Self-consistency checking, confidence calibration Phase 4 Focus: Statistical validation code, error detection patterns

Generative Agents

Phase 1 Focus: Quality criteria, template patterns Phase 2 Focus: Creative heuristics, refinement cycles Phase 3 Focus: Plan-and-solve frameworks, requirement tracking Phase 4 Focus: Generation patterns, quality validation code

Diagnostic Agents

Phase 1 Focus: Problem patterns, debugging workflows Phase 2 Focus: Hypothesis generation, systematic testing Phase 3 Focus: Program-of-thought decomposition, evidence tracking Phase 4 Focus: Detection scripts, root cause analysis patterns

Orchestration Agents

Phase 1 Focus: Workflow patterns, dependency management Phase 2 Focus: Coordination heuristics, error recovery Phase 3 Focus: Plan-and-solve with dependencies, progress tracking Phase 4 Focus: Orchestration code, retry logic, escalation paths

---

Testing & Validation

From existing framework + SOP enhancements:

Test Suite Creation

1. Typical Cases - Expected behavior on common tasks
2. Edge Cases - Boundary conditions and unusual inputs
3. Error Cases - Graceful handling and escalation
4. Integration Cases - End-to-end workflow with other agents
5. Performance Cases - Speed, efficiency, resource usage

Validation Checklist

• Identity: Agent maintains consistent role
• Commands: Uses universal commands correctly
• Specialist Skills: Demonstrates domain expertise
• MCP Integration: Coordinates via memory and tools
• Guardrails: Prevents identified failure modes
• Workflows: Executes examples successfully
• Metrics: Tracks performance data
• Code Patterns: Applies exact patterns from Phase 4
• Error Handling: Escalates appropriately
• Consistency: Produces stable outputs on repeat

---

Quick Reference

When to Use Each Phase

Phase 1 (Analysis):

• Always - Required foundation
• Especially for domains you're less familiar with

Phase 2 (Expertise Extraction):

• Always - Captures cognitive patterns
• Essential for complex reasoning tasks

Phase 3 (Architecture):

• Always - Creates base system prompt
• Critical for clear behavioral specification

Phase 4 (Enhancement):

• For production agents
• For technical domains requiring exact patterns
• When precision and failure prevention are critical

Speed-Run Approach (Experienced Creators)

1. Combined Phase 1+2 (30 min): Rapid domain analysis + spec
2. Phase 3 (30 min): Base prompt from template
3. Phase 4 (45 min): Code patterns + failure modes
4. Testing (15 min): Quick validation suite

Total: 2 hours for experienced creators with templates

---

Examples from Production

Example: Marketing Specialist Agent

See: docs/agent-architecture/agents-rewritten/MARKETING-SPECIALIST-AGENT.md

Phase 1 Output: Marketing domain analysis, tools (Google Analytics, SEMrush, etc.) Phase 2 Output: Marketing expertise (CAC, LTV, funnel optimization, attribution) Phase 3 Output: Base prompt with 9 specialist commands Phase 4 Output: Campaign workflow patterns, A/B test validation, ROI calculations

Result: Production-ready agent with deeply embedded marketing expertise

---

Maintenance & Iteration

Continuous Improvement

1. Metrics Review: Weekly review of agent performance metrics
2. Failure Analysis: Document and fix new failure modes
3. Pattern Updates: Add newly discovered code patterns
4. Workflow Optimization: Refine based on usage patterns

Version Control

• v1.0: Base prompt from Phase 3
• v1.x: Minor refinements from testing
• v2.0: Enhanced with Phase 4 patterns
• v2.x: Production iterations and improvements

---

Summary

This enhanced agent-creator skill combines:

• ✅ Official 4-phase SOP methodology (Desktop .claude-flow)
• ✅ Evidence-based prompting techniques (self-consistency, PoT, plan-and-solve)
• ✅ Claude Agent SDK implementation (TypeScript + Python)
• ✅ Production validation and testing frameworks
• ✅ Continuous improvement through metrics

Use this methodology to create all 90 specialist agents with:

• Deeply embedded domain knowledge
• Exact command and MCP tool specifications
• Production-ready failure prevention
• Measurable performance tracking

Next: Begin agent rewrites using this enhanced methodology.