Install
$ agentstack add skill-hybridlabor-api-bdb-dev-optimized-agent-skills-tdmcp-implementation-learning ✓ 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 No
- ✓ 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
tdmcp-implementation-learning - post-implementation learning harness
Coordinate a focused study of a completed tdmcp implementation, then turn the evidence into a prioritized improvement backlog. This harness answers: "What did this implementation teach us, and what should tdmcp improve next?"
Use it after a feature has already been built, merged, tested in TouchDesigner, used with hardware, reviewed in a PR, or exercised in a real installation.
Boundary
This harness studies and routes improvements. It does not own arbitrary feature implementation.
- Shipped/merged implementation learning:
tdmcp-implementation-learning.
- Chosen new feature build:
tdmcp-pipeline. - Broad repo quality or command health:
tdmcp-quality-audit. - Known coverage gaps:
tdmcp-test-coverage. - Docs, roadmap, or changelog sync:
tdmcp-docs-roadmap-update. - Continued Kinect wall harp work:
tdmcp-kinect-wall-harp.
Execution mode: sub-agent fan-out -> fan-in
No TeamCreate. Use coordinated sub-agents with file handoffs.
- Scope: lead only. Determine target feature, evidence sources, and artifact
directory.
- Study: sub-agent fan-out. Code, runtime, and quality surfaces can be inspected
independently.
- Synthesis: one sub-agent. One owner dedupes findings and ranks next actions.
- Handoff: lead only. The user gets a compact decision-ready report.
All agent calls use model: "opus" unless the caller has a stricter local policy.
Agent roster
tdmcp-implementation-learning-lead:
_workspace/implementation-learning//00_scope.md and final handoff.
tdmcp-implementation-cartographer:
_workspace/implementation-learning//01_map.md.
tdmcp-implementation-runtime-analyst:
_workspace/implementation-learning//02_runtime_lessons.md.
tdmcp-implementation-quality-analyst:
_workspace/implementation-learning//03_quality_gaps.md.
tdmcp-implementation-synthesizer:
_workspace/implementation-learning//04_backlog.md.
Use a short slug from the implementation name or PR, for example kinect-wall-harp, ai-party-mixer-scene, or pr-114-external-kinect.
Workflow
Phase 0 - context and safety check
- Read the current repo state with
git status --short --branch. - Read
CLAUDE.mdand any feature-specific harness pointer that already
exists. Prefer extending or routing through existing harnesses over inventing overlapping ones.
- Identify the implementation being studied from the user's request. If it is
ambiguous, infer the most recent relevant feature from local context and state the assumption.
- Create
_workspace/implementation-learning//. - Write
00_scope.mdwith:
- target implementation and date/context
- source branches, PRs, docs, specs, tools, scripts, and generated artifacts
- live/hardware evidence that exists or is missing
- explicit exclusions
- Preserve unrelated user changes. Do not revert or clean generated files unless
the user specifically asks.
Phase 1 - parallel study
Run the three analyst agents in parallel when their scopes are independent. Each writes incrementally to its artifact file.
Cartographer scope
Map the implementation across code, docs, CLI, tests, recipes, bridge scripts, runtime helpers, and generated TouchDesigner project structure.
Required output fields:
- shipped surfaces
- data/control flow
- coupling points
- reusable patterns
- duplicated or one-off code that could become a common primitive
- missing ownership boundaries
- follow-up candidates with file references
Runtime analyst scope
Study the implementation from the user's real usage path: TouchDesigner bridge, Kinect/camera/audio/projector setup, diagnostics, calibration, failure modes, latency, and operator ergonomics.
Required output fields:
- what was actually verified live
- what remains
UNVERIFIED - user pain points observed during the implementation
- runtime diagnostics that helped or were missing
- setup steps that should become tool affordances or docs
- hardware assumptions that should be explicit
Do not report hardware or TouchDesigner checks as passing unless they were actually run.
Quality analyst scope
Study the implementation for tests, CI, review feedback, validation gaps, warnings, script robustness, security, and maintainability.
Required output fields:
- current gates checked
- failing or unverified gates
- regression risks
- missing unit/integration/bridge/live tests
- review findings that should become tests or lint checks
- safe first patch candidates
Phase 2 - synthesis
Spawn tdmcp-implementation-synthesizer. It reads 00_scope.md, 01_map.md, 02_runtime_lessons.md, and 03_quality_gaps.md, then writes 04_backlog.md.
The backlog must group items by action type:
CODETESTDOCSRUNTIMEHARNESSRESEARCH
Each item must include:
- title
- evidence
- proposed change
- target files or harness
- impact:
High,Medium, orLow - effort:
S,M, orL - confidence:
High,Medium, orLow - recommended route: direct patch,
tdmcp-pipeline,tdmcp-quality-audit,
tdmcp-test-coverage, tdmcp-docs-roadmap-update, or feature-specific harness
Phase 3 - QA and handoff
The lead reads all artifacts and performs a consistency pass:
- Every claim has evidence or is clearly marked
UNVERIFIED. - Items already present in
docs/ROADMAP.mdare labeled as roadmap extensions,
not rediscovered work.
- Findings are not duplicate entries under different names.
- Recommended immediate work is small enough for a first patch wave.
- The final response names artifact paths, top priorities, unverified areas,
and the next build route.
If the user asked to continue beyond study, the lead can start the first safe wave after synthesis:
- docs-only improvements -> apply directly or route to
tdmcp-docs-roadmap-update
- missing tests -> route to
tdmcp-test-coverage - feature implementation -> route to
tdmcp-pipeline - live Kinect/wall harp continuation -> route to
tdmcp-kinect-wall-harp - repo-wide health -> route to
tdmcp-quality-audit
Output format
Use this artifact tree:
_workspace/implementation-learning//
00_scope.md
01_map.md
02_runtime_lessons.md
03_quality_gaps.md
04_backlog.md
05_qa.md
The final user-facing summary should stay concise:
- target studied
- top 3-5 improvements
- what is ready for a first patch wave
- what remains unverified
- artifact path
Error handling
- Feature scope is unclear: infer from branch/context, state the assumption, and
keep scope editable.
- Live hardware is unavailable: continue code/docs/test study and mark runtime
checks UNVERIFIED - hardware not available.
- Prior artifacts exist: read them first and resume/update only the requested
section.
- Analyst output is missing or thin: re-run that analyst once; otherwise
synthesize with a coverage gap.
- Finding requires a new feature: route it; do not silently build it inside the
learning harness.
- Finding conflicts with existing roadmap: label as
ROADMAPorEXTENSION
with citation.
Test scenarios
Normal: user asks to study the Kinect wall harp implementation after merge. Lead creates _workspace/implementation-learning/kinect-wall-harp/, scopes code and PR evidence, runs cartographer/runtime/quality analysts in parallel, synthesizer writes a ranked backlog, and lead recommends a first patch wave: for example bridge robustness, sensor diagnostics, calibration UX, reusable physical-installation docs, and missing regression tests.
Scoped: user asks only for "what did the audio problem teach us?" Lead scopes kinect-wall-harp-audio, runs cartographer and quality analyst only if runtime artifacts already explain the issue, synthesizes a short backlog around audio device/sample-rate diagnostics, gain staging, and testable synth defaults.
Unavailable hardware: user asks to learn from a physical installation but TouchDesigner/Kinect is not connected. The runtime analyst records setup questions and UNVERIFIED checks, while code/docs/quality reports still produce actionable improvements.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: hybridlabor-api
- Source: hybridlabor-api/bdb-dev-optimized-agent-skills
- License: Apache-2.0
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.