/agentic-engineering
Operate as an agentic engineer using eval-first execution, decomposition, and cost-aware model routing. Use when planning or executing engineering work that agents will carry out end to end.
Claude Code
$ npx -y skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill agentic-engineering --agent claude-code
Codex
$ npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill agentic-engineering -a codex -y
Cursor
$ npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill agentic-engineering -a cursor -y
Gemini CLI
$ npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill agentic-engineering -a gemini-cli -y
GitHub Copilot
$ npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill agentic-engineering -a github-copilot -y
OpenCode
$ npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill agentic-engineering -a opencode -y
Windsurf
$ npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill agentic-engineering -a windsurf -y
SKILL.md
agentic-engineering.SKILL.mdname: agentic-engineering
description: Operate as an agentic engineer using eval-first execution, decomposition, and cost-aware model routing. Use when planning or executing engineering work that agents will carry out end to end.
metadata:
origin: ECC
Agentic Engineering
Use this skill for engineering workflows where AI agents perform most implementation work and humans enforce quality and risk controls.
Operating Principles
1. Define completion criteria before execution. 2. Decompose work into agent-sized units. 3. Route model tiers by task complexity. 4. Measure with evals and regression checks.
Eval-First Loop
1. Define capability eval and regression eval. 2. Run baseline and capture failure signatures. 3. Execute implementation. 4. Re-run evals and compare deltas.
Task Decomposition
Apply the 15-minute unit rule:
- each unit should be independently verifiable
- each unit should have a single dominant risk
- each unit should expose a clear done condition
Model Routing
- Haiku: classification, boilerplate transforms, narrow edits
- Sonnet: implementation and refactors
- Opus: architecture, root-cause analysis, multi-file invariants
Session Strategy
- Continue session for closely-coupled units.
- Start fresh session after major phase transitions.
- Compact after milestone completion, not during active debugging.
Review Focus for AI-Generated Code
Prioritize:
- invariants and edge cases
- error boundaries
- security and auth assumptions
- hidden coupling and rollout risk
Do not waste review cycles on style-only disagreements when automated format/lint already enforce style.
Interpret Tool Results Before Comparing Data
For document reads and processing loops, check three boundaries in order:
1. Check the tool/transport envelope for an error or an indeterminate outcome. 2. Decode the response and check operation status using that tool's documented contract. An outer success flag or a present payload does not establish that the requested operation succeeded. Status may live in structured content, decoded text, or another documented field; `result.ok` is not a universal MCP field. Missing or unrecognized status stays unknown. 3. Only after confirmed operation success, validate the document shape and compare its fields. An operation failure is not a document identity mismatch.
Keep the operation name, request/correlation ID when available, relevant status and error details, and the original response needed for diagnosis. Redact secrets and private document data before logging or sharing. Do not reconstruct missing responses from a later response's shape.
Portable Classification Example
The adapter below uses an **illustrative read-tool contract**, not an MCP schema: `isError` is a required boolean; when false, `result.ok` is a required operation status. A successful read returns `result.document` with a string `id`; a failed read may carry `result.error`. Replace this adapter with the actual tool's contract, including its documented decoding and document validation rules.
function decodeRead(response) {
if (!response || typeof response.isError !== 'boolean') {
return { kind: 'unknown_response' };
}
if (response.isError) return { kind: 'tool_error' };
const result = response.result;
if (result?.ok === false) {
return { kind: 'operation_error', error: result.error };
}
if (result?.ok !== true) return { kind: 'unknown_response' };
const document = result.document;
if (!document || typeof document.id !== 'string') {
return { kind: 'invalid_document' };
}
return { kind: 'document', document };
}
function inspectRead(response, expectedId, decode = decodeRead) {
const outcome = decode(response);
if (outcome.kind !== 'document') return outcome;
return outcome.document.id === expectedId
? { kind: 'match', document: outcome.document }
: { kind: 'field_mismatch', actualId: outcome.document.id, expectedId };
}Synthetic evaluation cases (not a reproduction of any historical incident):
| Input under this illustrative contract | Expected classification | | --- | --- | | `isError: true` | `tool_error`; no field comparison | | `isError: false`, `result.ok: false`, maintenance error, no document | `operation_error`; preserve maintenance details, no mismatch | | `isError: false`, missing operation status | `unknown_response`; no field comparison | | Confirmed success, missing document or non-string ID | `invalid_document`; no field comparison | | Confirmed success, valid document with expected ID | `match` | | Confirmed success, valid document with a different ID | `field_mismatch` |
Classification does not authorize a write or retry. Temporary maintenance remains an operation failure with its own evidence; follow the tool's documented recovery policy. A documented service-wide maintenance failure should stop a batch rather than trigger the same request for every row; a lone authorization error does not establish service-wide maintenance. If a write times out or its outcome is unknown, preserve that uncertainty and reconcile using a documented status/read-back mechanism before considering a retry. Never infer that a write failed, repeat it, or overwrite a document solely because a read failed or a returned field differs.
Cost Discipline
Track per task:
- model
- token estimate
- retries
- wall-clock time
- success/failure
Escalate model tier only when lower tier fails with a clear reasoning gap.
Read more
name: agentic-engineering description: Operate as an agentic engineer using eval-first execution, decomposition, and cost-aware model routing. Use when planning or executing engineering work that agents will carry out end to end. metadata: origin: ECC
Agentic Engineering
Use this skill for engineering workflows where AI agents perform most implementation work and humans enforce quality and risk controls.
Operating Principles
1. Define completion criteria before execution. 2. Decompose work into agent-sized units. 3. Route model tiers by task complexity. 4. Measure with evals and regression checks.
Eval-First Loop
1. Define capability eval and regression eval. 2. Run baseline and capture failure signatures. 3. Execute implementation. 4. Re-run evals and compare deltas.
Task Decomposition
Apply the 15-minute unit rule:
- each unit should be independently verifiable
- each unit should have a single dominant risk
- each unit should expose a clear done condition
Model Routing
- Haiku: classification, boilerplate transforms, narrow edits
- Sonnet: implementation and refactors
- Opus: architecture, root-cause analysis, multi-file invariants
Session Strategy
- Continue session for closely-coupled units.
- Start fresh session after major phase transitions.
- Compact after milestone completion, not during active debugging.
Review Focus for AI-Generated Code
Prioritize:
- invariants and edge cases
- error boundaries
- security and auth assumptions
- hidden coupling and rollout risk
Do not waste review cycles on style-only disagreements when automated format/lint already enforce style.
Interpret Tool Results Before Comparing Data
For document reads and processing loops, check three boundaries in order:
1. Check the tool/transport envelope for an error or an indeterminate outcome. 2. Decode the response and check operation status using that tool's documented contract. An outer success flag or a present payload does not establish that the requested operation succeeded. Status may live in structured content, decoded text, or another documented field; `result.ok` is not a universal MCP field. Missing or unrecognized status stays unknown. 3. Only after confirmed operation success, validate the document shape and compare its fields. An operation failure is not a document identity mismatch.
Keep the operation name, request/correlation ID when available, relevant status and error details, and the original response needed for diagnosis. Redact secrets and private document data before logging or sharing. Do not reconstruct missing responses from a later response's shape.
Portable Classification Example
The adapter below uses an **illustrative read-tool contract**, not an MCP schema: `isError` is a required boolean; when false, `result.ok` is a required operation status. A successful read returns `result.document` with a string `id`; a failed read may carry `result.error`. Replace this adapter with the actual tool's contract, including its documented decoding and document validation rules.
function decodeRead(response) {
if (!response || typeof response.isError !== 'boolean') {
return { kind: 'unknown_response' };
}
if (response.isError) return { kind: 'tool_error' };
const result = response.result;
if (result?.ok === false) {
return { kind: 'operation_error', error: result.error };
}
if (result?.ok !== true) return { kind: 'unknown_response' };
const document = result.document;
if (!document || typeof document.id !== 'string') {
return { kind: 'invalid_document' };
}
return { kind: 'document', document };
}
function inspectRead(response, expectedId, decode = decodeRead) {
const outcome = decode(response);
if (outcome.kind !== 'document') return outcome;
return outcome.document.id === expectedId
? { kind: 'match', document: outcome.document }
: { kind: 'field_mismatch', actualId: outcome.document.id, expectedId };
}Synthetic evaluation cases (not a reproduction of any historical incident):
| Input under this illustrative contract | Expected classification | | --- | --- | | `isError: true` | `tool_error`; no field comparison | | `isError: false`, `result.ok: false`, maintenance error, no document | `operation_error`; preserve maintenance details, no mismatch | | `isError: false`, missing operation status | `unknown_response`; no field comparison | | Confirmed success, missing document or non-string ID | `invalid_document`; no field comparison | | Confirmed success, valid document with expected ID | `match` | | Confirmed success, valid document with a different ID | `field_mismatch` |
Classification does not authorize a write or retry. Temporary maintenance remains an operation failure with its own evidence; follow the tool's documented recovery policy. A documented service-wide maintenance failure should stop a batch rather than trigger the same request for every row; a lone authorization error does not establish service-wide maintenance. If a write times out or its outcome is unknown, preserve that uncertainty and reconcile using a documented status/read-back mechanism before considering a retry. Never infer that a write failed, repeat it, or overwrite a document solely because a read failed or a returned field differs.
Cost Discipline
Track per task:
- model
- token estimate
- retries
- wall-clock time
- success/failure
Escalate model tier only when lower tier fails with a clear reasoning gap.
Your agent can write code, but ECC gives it a coordinated engineering system and toolbox: it plans before it builds, verifies changes with tests, reviews its own work from a fresh context, remembers what matters, and turns repeated wins into reusable skills
Other skills on ecc.
More skills from other plugins.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or…
ask-matt
Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.
act-on-feedback
Act on user feedback attached to the current session. Use when the user submits feedback on the session's changes via the Submit…
Questions about agentic-engineering.
- Which coding agents can use agentic-engineering?
- agentic-engineering installs in Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, OpenCode and Windsurf with the skills CLI, using each agent's flag shown on this page. Flowy's auto-invocation, which fires a skill when your prompt matches, runs in Claude Code only.

