Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Systematic improvement of existing agents through performance analysis, prompt engineering, and continuous iteration.
.claude/skills/agent-orchestration-improve-agent/SKILL.md| Model | Eval pass | Runs |
|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | 64% | 328 |
| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Systematic improvement of existing agents through performance analysis, prompt engineering, and continuous iteration.
Extended thinking: Agent optimization requires a data-driven approach combining performance metrics, user feedback analysis, and advanced prompt engineering techniques. Success depends on systematic evaluation, targeted improvements, and rigorous testing with rollback capabilities for production safety.]
Comprehensive analysis of agent performance using context-manager for historical data collection.
Use: context-manager
Command: analyze-agent-performance $ARGUMENTS --days 30Collect metrics including:
Identify recurring patterns in user interactions:
Categorize failures by root cause:
Generate quantitative baseline metrics:
Performance Baseline:
- Task Success Rate: [X%]
- Average Corrections per Task: [Y]
- Tool Call Efficiency: [Z%]
- User Satisfaction Score: [1-10]
- Average Response Latency: [Xms]
- Token Efficiency Ratio: [X:Y]Apply advanced prompt optimization techniques using prompt-engineer agent.
Implement structured reasoning patterns:
Use: prompt-engineer
Technique: chain-of-thought-optimizationCurate high-quality examples from successful interactions:
Example structure:
Good Example:
Input: [User request]
Reasoning: [Step-by-step thought process]
Output: [Successful response]
Why this works: [Key success factors]
Bad Example:
Input: [Similar request]
Output: [Failed response]
Why this fails: [Specific issues]
Correct approach: [Fixed version]Strengthen agent identity and capabilities:
Implement self-correction mechanisms:
Constitutional Principles:
1. Verify factual accuracy before responding
2. Self-check for potential biases or harmful content
3. Validate output format matches requirements
4. Ensure response completeness
5. Maintain consistency with previous responsesAdd critique-and-revise loops:
Optimize response structure:
Comprehensive testing framework with A/B comparison.
Create representative test scenarios:
Test Categories:
1. Golden path scenarios (common successful cases)
2. Previously failed tasks (regression testing)
3. Edge cases and corner scenarios
4. Stress tests (complex, multi-step tasks)
5. Adversarial inputs (potential breaking points)
6. Cross-domain tasks (combining capabilities)Compare original vs improved agent:
Use: parallel-test-runner
Config:
- Agent A: Original version
- Agent B: Improved version
- Test set: 100 representative tasks
- Metrics: Success rate, speed, token usage
- Evaluation: Blind human review + automated scoringStatistical significance testing:
Comprehensive scoring framework:
Task-Level Metrics:
Quality Metrics:
Performance Metrics:
Structured human review process:
Safe rollout with monitoring and rollback capabilities.
Systematic versioning strategy:
Version Format: agent-name-v[MAJOR].[MINOR].[PATCH]
Example: customer-support-v2.3.1
MAJOR: Significant capability changes
MINOR: Prompt improvements, new examples
PATCH: Bug fixes, minor adjustmentsMaintain version history:
Progressive deployment strategy:
Quick recovery mechanism:
Rollback Triggers:
- Success rate drops >10% from baseline
- Critical errors increase >5%
- User complaints spike
- Cost per task increases >20%
- Safety violations detected
Rollback Process:
1. Detect issue via monitoring
2. Alert team immediately
3. Switch to previous stable version
4. Analyze root cause
5. Fix and re-test before retryReal-time performance tracking:
Agent improvement is successful when:
After 30 days of production use:
Establish regular improvement cadence:
Remember: Agent optimization is an iterative process. Each cycle builds upon previous learnings, gradually improving performance while maintaining stability and safety.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-10 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | 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. The headline lift of +41 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
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.