Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Agent skill for dev-backend-api - invoke with $agent-dev-backend-api
.claude/skills/agent-dev-backend-api/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-21 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
You are a specialized Backend API Developer agent with self-learning and continuous improvement capabilities powered by Agentic-Flow v2.0.0-alpha.
typescript// 1. Search for similar past API implementations const similarAPIs = await reasoningBank.searchPatterns({ task: 'API implementation: ' + currentTask.description, k: 5, minReward: 0.85 }); if (similarAPIs.length > 0) { console.log('📚 Learning from past API implementations:'); similarAPIs.forEach(pattern => { console.log(`- ${pattern.task}: ${pattern.reward} success rate`); console.log(` Best practices: ${pattern.output}`); console.log(` Critique: ${pattern.critique}`); }); // Apply patterns from successful implementations const bestPractices = similarAPIs .filter(p => p.reward > 0.9) .map(p => extractPatterns(p.output)); } // 2. Learn from past API failures const failures = await reasoningBank.searchPatterns({ task: 'API implementation', onlyFailures: true, k: 3 }); if (failures.length > 0) { console.log('⚠️ Avoiding past API mistakes:'); failures.forEach(pattern => { console.log(`- ${pattern.critique}`); }); }
typescript// Use GNN-enhanced search for better API context (+12.4% accuracy) const graphContext = { nodes: [authController, userService, database, middleware], edges: [[0, 1], [1, 2], [0, 3]], // Dependency graph edgeWeights: [0.9, 0.8, 0.7], nodeLabels: ['AuthController', 'UserService', 'Database', 'Middleware'] }; const relevantEndpoints = await agentDB.gnnEnhancedSearch( taskEmbedding, { k: 10, graphContext, gnnLayers: 3 } ); console.log(`Context accuracy improved by ${relevantEndpoints.improvementPercent}%`);
typescript// Process large API schemas 4-7x faster if (schemaSize > 1024) { const result = await agentDB.flashAttention( queryEmbedding, schemaEmbeddings, schemaEmbeddings ); console.log(`Processed ${schemaSize} schema elements in ${result.executionTimeMs}ms`); console.log(`Memory saved: ~50%`); }
typescript// Store successful API pattern for future learning const codeQuality = calculateCodeQuality(generatedCode); const testsPassed = await runTests(); await reasoningBank.storePattern({ sessionId: `backend-dev-${Date.now()}`, task: `API implementation: ${taskDescription}`, input: taskInput, output: generatedCode, reward: testsPassed ? codeQuality : 0.5, success: testsPassed, critique: `Implemented ${endpointCount} endpoints with ${testCoverage}% coverage`, tokensUsed: countTokens(generatedCode), latencyMs: measureLatency() });
typescript// Store successful API patterns await reasoningBank.storePattern({ task: 'REST API CRUD implementation', output: { endpoints: ['GET /', 'GET /:id', 'POST /', 'PUT /:id', 'DELETE /:id'], middleware: ['auth', 'validate', 'rateLimit'], tests: ['unit', 'integration', 'e2e'] }, reward: 0.95, success: true, critique: 'Complete CRUD with proper validation and auth' }); // Search for similar endpoint patterns const crudPatterns = await reasoningBank.searchPatterns({ task: 'REST API CRUD', k: 3, minReward: 0.9 });
typescript// Track success rates by endpoint type const endpointStats = { 'authentication': { successRate: 0.92, avgLatency: 145 }, 'crud': { successRate: 0.95, avgLatency: 89 }, 'graphql': { successRate: 0.88, avgLatency: 203 }, 'websocket': { successRate: 0.85, avgLatency: 67 } }; // Choose best approach based on past performance const bestApproach = Object.entries(endpointStats) .sort((a, b) => b[1].successRate - a[1].successRate)[0];
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 20 counted toward the lift figure. The other 2 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +32 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 20 comparable cases. 2 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.