Install
$ agentstack add skill-existential-birds-beagle-agent-architecture-analysis ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ● Network access Used
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
12-Factor Agents Compliance Analysis
> Reference: 12-Factor Agents
Input Parameters
| Parameter | Description | Required | |-----------|-------------|----------| | docs_path | Path to documentation directory (for existing analyses) | Optional | | codebase_path | Root path of the codebase to analyze | Required |
Analysis Framework
The full per-factor rubric — principle, search patterns, file patterns, compliance criteria (Strong/Partial/Weak), and anti-patterns for each of the 13 factors — lives in [references/factors.md](references/factors.md). During the [Analysis Workflow](#analysis-workflow), read the relevant factor sections there for the search patterns to run and the criteria to score against.
| # | Factor | Focus | |---|--------|-------| | 1 | Natural Language to Tool Calls | Schema-validated structured outputs from LLM | | 2 | Own Your Prompts | Prompts as first-class, versioned, templated code | | 3 | Own Your Context Window | Custom formatting of history/state/tool results | | 4 | Tools Are Structured Outputs | Validated JSON triggers deterministic code | | 5 | Unify Execution State | Single state object merging execution + business state | | 6 | Launch/Pause/Resume | APIs to launch, pause anywhere, resume | | 7 | Contact Humans with Tools | Human contact as a structured tool call | | 8 | Own Your Control Flow | Custom routing/retries, not framework defaults | | 9 | Compact Errors into Context | Errors fed back for self-healing + escalation | | 10 | Small, Focused Agents | Narrow responsibility, 3-10 steps each | | 11 | Trigger from Anywhere | CLI/REST/WebSocket/chat/webhook entry points | | 12 | Stateless Reducer | Pure (state, input) -> (state, output) agents | | 13 | Pre-fetch Context | Fetch likely-needed data upfront |
See [references/factors.md](references/factors.md) for the complete rubric for every factor above.
Output Format
Gate order: Do not assign Strong / Partial / Weak or treat recommendations as observed facts until Hard gates (after [Analysis Workflow](#analysis-workflow)) are satisfied for the factors in scope.
Executive Summary Table
| Factor | Status | Notes |
|--------|--------|-------|
| 1. Natural Language -> Tool Calls | **Strong/Partial/Weak** | [Key finding] |
| 2. Own Your Prompts | **Strong/Partial/Weak** | [Key finding] |
| ... | ... | ... |
| 13. Pre-fetch Context | **Strong/Partial/Weak** | [Key finding] |
**Overall**: X Strong, Y Partial, Z Weak
Per-Factor Analysis
For each factor, provide:
- Current Implementation
- Evidence with file:line references
- Code snippets showing patterns
- Compliance Level
- Strong/Partial/Weak with justification
- Gaps
- What's missing vs. 12-Factor ideal
- Recommendations
- Actionable improvements with code examples
Analysis Workflow
- Initial Scan
- Run search patterns for all factors
- Identify key files for each factor
- Note any existing compliance documentation
- Deep Dive (per factor)
- Read identified files
- Evaluate against compliance criteria
- Document evidence with file paths
- Gap Analysis
- Compare current vs. 12-Factor ideal
- Identify anti-patterns present
- Prioritize by impact
- Recommendations
- Provide actionable improvements
- Include before/after code examples
- Reference roadmap if exists
- Summary
- Compile executive summary table
- Highlight strengths and critical gaps
- Suggest priority order for improvements
Hard gates (evidence before scores)
Run these in order. Do not skip ahead: each Pass is an objective condition you can check (paths on disk, citations present), not internal certainty.
- Scan gate — After the initial scan (workflow step 1), Pass: for every factor (1–13) you have either (a) ≥1 repo-relative path or glob hit to inspect, or (b) a one-line note with rationale (e.g. search command/output, or “no matches — codebase may omit this concern”). Empty hand-waving (“looks fine”) fails this gate.
- Evidence gate (per factor) — Before writing Strong / Partial / Weak for that factor, Pass: “Current Implementation” includes ≥1 citation with file path plus line range or short quoted snippet from
codebase_path, or an explicit no evidence located statement after targeted reads. If evidence is missing after search, default that factor to Weak unless the criterion is clearly N/A (say why). - Synthesis gate — Executive summary table and per-factor analysis sections, Pass: only after gates 1–2 are satisfied for the factors in scope. Recommendations may name new files or patterns only as proposals; they must not be presented as observed facts without matching citations from step 2.
Quick Reference: Compliance Scoring
| Score | Meaning | Action | |-------|---------|--------| | Strong | Fully implements principle | Maintain, minor optimizations | | Partial | Some implementation, significant gaps | Planned improvements | | Weak | Minimal or no implementation | High priority for roadmap |
When to Use This Skill
- Evaluating new LLM-powered systems
- Reviewing agent architecture decisions
- Auditing production agentic applications
- Planning improvements to existing agents
- Comparing frameworks or implementations
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: existential-birds
- Source: existential-birds/beagle
- License: Apache-2.0
- Homepage: https://existentialbirds.com
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.