Agent Development

Agent Development for Claude Code

Build effective custom agents for Claude Code with proper delegation, tool access, and prompt design.

Agent Description Pattern

The description field determines whether Claude will automatically delegate tasks.

Strong Trigger Pattern

---
name: agent-name
description: |
  [Role] specialist. MUST BE USED when [specific triggers].
  Use PROACTIVELY for [task category].
  Keywords: [trigger words]
tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash
model: sonnet
---

Weak vs Strong Descriptions

| Weak (won't auto-delegate) | Strong (auto-delegates) | |---------------------------|-------------------------| | "Analyzes screenshots for issues" | "Visual QA specialist. MUST BE USED when analyzing screenshots. Use PROACTIVELY for visual QA." | | "Runs Playwright scripts" | "Playwright specialist. MUST BE USED when running Playwright scripts. Use PROACTIVELY for browser automation." |

Key phrases:

• "MUST BE USED when..."
• "Use PROACTIVELY for..."
• Include trigger keywords

Delegation Mechanisms

1. Explicit: Task tool subagent_type: "agent-name" - always works
2. Automatic: Claude matches task to agent description - requires strong phrasing

Session restart required after creating/modifying agents.

Tool Access Principle

If an agent doesn't need Bash, don't give it Bash.

| Agent needs to... | Give tools | Don't give | |-------------------|------------|------------| | Create files only | Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep | Bash | | Run scripts/CLIs | Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash | — | | Read/audit only | Read, Glob, Grep | Write, Edit, Bash |

Why? Models default to `cat > file "Agents that won't have your context must be able to reproduce the behaviour independently."

Every improvement must be encoded into the agent's prompt, not left as implicit knowledge.

What to Encode

| Discovery | Where to Capture | |-----------|------------------| | Bug fix pattern | Agent's "Corrections" or "Common Issues" section | | Quality requirement | Agent's "Quality Checklist" section | | File path convention | Agent's "Output" section | | Tool usage pattern | Agent's "Process" section | | Blocking prerequisite | Agent's "Blocking Check" section |

Test: Would a Fresh Agent Succeed?

Before completing any agent improvement:

1. Read the agent prompt as if you have no context
2. Ask: Could a new session follow this and produce the same quality?
3. If no: Add missing instructions, patterns, or references

Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | |--------------|--------------| | "As we discussed earlier..." | No prior context exists | | Relying on files read during dev | Agent may not read same files | | Assuming knowledge from errors | Agent won't see your debugging | | "Just like the home page" | Agent hasn't built home page |

Flexibility vs Rigidity

Match specification level to task type. Over-specifying flexible agents makes them brittle.

| Task Type | Specification Level | Example | |-----------|---------------------|---------| | Mechanical/repetitive | High (rigid steps) | Version checker, file copier | | Judgment-based | Low (guidelines) | Docs auditor, code reviewer | | Creative | Minimal (goals only) | Content writer, brainstormer |

Signs You've Over-Specified

• Agent fills in template sections with "N/A"
• Agent tries to complete all phases even when irrelevant
• Scoring systems produce meaningless numbers
• Agent fails when scope doesn't match assumptions
• Long agents (>150 lines) for simple tasks

Flexible Agent Guidelines

DO:

• Describe what to look for, not exact steps
• Provide output examples, not rigid templates
• Include scope control ("if >30 items, ask user")
• Give escape hatches ("if unsure, flag for review")
• Keep under 100 lines for judgment tasks

DON'T:

• Require filling every section of a template
• Create elaborate weighted scoring systems
• List every possible check exhaustively
• Assume scope without asking

Example: Docs Auditor

Over-specified (bad):

## Phase 1: Discovery
Execute Glob for all .md files...

## Phase 6: Generate Report
| Category | Weight | Score | Weighted |
|----------|--------|-------|----------|
| Links    | 20%    | X/100 | X        |

Right-sized (good):

## What to Check
- TODOs, broken links, stale versions

## Output Format
List issues by severity. Include file:line and fix.

## Scope Control
If >30 files, ask user which to focus on.

---

Agent Prompt Structure

Effective agent prompts include:

## Your Role
[What the agent does]

## Blocking Check
[Prerequisites that must exist]

## Input
[What files to read]

## Process
[Step-by-step with encoded learnings]

## Output
[Exact file paths and formats]

## Quality Checklist
[Verification steps including learned gotchas]

## Common Issues
[Patterns discovered during development]

Pipeline Agents

When inserting a new agent into a numbered pipeline (e.g., HTML-01 → HTML-05 → HTML-11):

| Must Update | What | |-------------|------| | New agent | "Workflow Position" diagram + "Next" field | | Predecessor agent | Its "Next" field to point to new agent |

Common bug: New agent is "orphaned" because predecessor still points to old next agent.

Verification:

grep -n "Next:.*→\|Then.*runs next" .claude/agents/*.md

The Sweet Spot

Best use case: Tasks that are repetitive but require judgment.

Example: Auditing 70 skills manually = tedious. But each audit needs intelligence (check docs, compare versions, decide what to fix). Perfect for parallel agents with clear instructions.

Not good for:

• Simple tasks (just do them)
• Highly creative tasks (need human direction)
• Tasks requiring cross-file coordination (agents work independently)

Effective Prompt Template

For each [item]:
1. Read [source file]
2. Verify with [external check - npm view, API call, etc.]
3. Check [authoritative source]
4. Score/evaluate
5. FIX issues found ← Critical instruction

Key elements:

• "FIX issues found" - Without this, agents only report. With it, they take action.
• Exact file paths - Prevents ambiguity
• Output format template - Ensures consistent, parseable reports
• Batch size ~5 items - Enough work to be efficient, not so much that failures cascade

Workflow Pattern

1. ME: Launch 2-3 parallel agents with identical prompt, different item lists
2. AGENTS: Work in parallel (read → verify → check → edit → report)
3. AGENTS: Return structured reports (score, status, fixes applied, files modified)
4. ME: Review changes (git status, spot-check diffs)
5. ME: Commit in batches with meaningful changelog
6. ME: Push and update progress tracking

Why agents don't commit: Allows human review, batching, and clean commit history.

Signs a Task Fits This Pattern

Good fit:

• Same steps repeated for many items
• Each item requires judgment (not just transformation)
• Items are independent (no cross-item dependencies)
• Clear success criteria (score, pass/fail, etc.)
• Authoritative source exists to verify against

Bad fit:

• Items depend on each other's results
• Requires creative/subjective decisions
• Single complex task (use regular agent instead)
• Needs human input mid-process

Quick Reference

Agent Frontmatter Template

---
name: my-agent
description: |
  [Role] specialist. MUST BE USED when [triggers].
  Use PROACTIVELY for [task category].
  Keywords: [trigger words]
tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash
model: sonnet
---

Fix Bash Approval Spam

1. Remove Bash from tools if not needed
2. Put critical instructions FIRST (right after frontmatter)
3. Use allowlists in .claude/settings.json

Memory Crash Recovery

export NODE_OPTIONS="--max-old-space-size=16384"
source ~/.bashrc && claude

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: Kgeminic
• Source: Kgeminic/claude-skills-1
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.