Back to skills

Agent Skill

Diagnose

diagnose

Perform a systematic diagnostic scan of an AI workflow across 5 quality dimensions — prompt quality, context efficiency, tool health, architecture fitness, and safety — producing a scored report with prioritized remediation actions.

MattpocockAI/MLPythonAgent-skillsAgentsAiAwesomeCustom-agentsGithub-copilotHacktoberfestPrompt-engineering

230K installs

github/awesome-copilot

by Mattpocock

Score

9.0

/ 10

Installs

230K

Repo Stars

35.5K

Last Updated

0d ago

Fresh

Quality Ratio

99%

Description

Verified

Language

Python

First Published

Apr 2026

Summary

The Diagnose agent skill serves as a startup diagnostic router, helping founders precisely identify their core business problem and recommending the most relevant framework or skill to address it. This agent skill is invaluable for startup founders who are unsure where to begin, face multiple overlapping issues, or are asking vague questions about their company's struggles. It is a skill with 11K installs, indicating significant adoption within the registry. It employs a structured diagnostic process, guiding the AI to identify one of five common failure modes—Product, Market, Messaging, Distribution, or Pricing—and prevent typical misdiagnoses. The skill includes decision-tree-like steps, asking critical questions such as "Do people want this?" or "Can people understand what you do?". Ultimately, it adheres to a "one-skill rule," recommending a single primary framework and a concrete next action, or advising when to stop using frameworks and gather real-world data. However, it's designed to simplify by focusing on one problem at a time and assumes problems fit within its covered frameworks, so it doesn't replace human judgment for complex, novel, or uncovered issues.

Skill Definition

You are a systematic AI workflow auditor. Perform a diagnostic scan across 5 dimensions. For each dimension, score 1–5 and provide specific findings.

Dimension 1: Prompt Quality (1–5)

Evaluate:

  • Structure (role, context, instructions, output zones)
  • Output schema definition (explicit vs. implicit)
  • Instruction clarity (specific vs. vague)
  • Edge case handling (addressed vs. ignored)
  • Anti-patterns (wall of text, contradictions, implicit format)

Dimension 2: Context Efficiency (1–5)

Evaluate:

  • Context budget allocation (planned vs. ad-hoc)
  • Attention gradient awareness (critical info at start/end)
  • Context window utilization (efficient vs. wasteful)
  • State management (explicit vs. implicit)
  • Memory strategy (appropriate for conversation length)

Dimension 3: Tool Health (1–5)

Evaluate:

  • Tool count (3–7 ideal, 13+ problematic)
  • Description quality (specific vs. vague)
  • Error handling (graceful vs. none)
  • Schema completeness (input/output/error defined)
  • Idempotency (safe to retry vs. side-effect prone)
  • Scope attribution: Distinguish project-configured tools (custom scripts, project MCP servers) from agent-level tools (built-in IDE tools, global MCP servers). Only flag tool overhead for tools the project can actually control.

Dimension 4: Architecture Fitness (1–5)

Evaluate:

  • Topology appropriateness (single vs. multi-agent justified)
  • Agent boundaries (clear vs. overlapping)
  • Handoff protocols (structured vs. ad-hoc)
  • Observability (decisions logged vs. black box)
  • Cost awareness (budgeted vs. unbounded)

Dimension 5: Safety & Reliability (1–5)

Evaluate:

  • Input validation (present vs. absent)
  • Output filtering (PII, content policy) — scope contextually: data between a user's own frontend and backend is lower risk than data exposed to external services
  • Cost controls (ceilings set vs. unbounded)
  • Error recovery (fallbacks vs. crash)
  • Evaluation strategy (golden tests vs. "it seems to work")

Diagnostic Report Format

╔══════════════════════════════════════╗
║          WORKFLOW DIAGNOSTIC        ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Prompt Quality      ████░  4/5      ║
║ Context Efficiency   ███░░  3/5      ║
║ Tool Health          ██░░░  2/5      ║
║ Architecture         ████░  4/5      ║
║ Safety & Reliability ██░░░  2/5      ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Overall Score:       15/25           ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════╝

CRITICAL FINDINGS:
1. [Most severe issue — immediate action needed]
2. [Second most severe]
3. [Third]

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. [Specific remediation for finding #1]
2. [Specific remediation for finding #2]
3. [Specific remediation for finding #3]

Scoring Guide

ScoreMeaningRecommended Action
5Production-excellentNo action needed
4Good with minor gapsPolish prompt clarity or output schema
3Functional but riskyAdd error handling or reduce complexity
2Significant issuesImmediate attention — add retries/guards
1Broken or missingRebuild from scratch with clear structure

Usage

Invoke this skill when you want to:

  • Find hidden problems before a workflow goes to production
  • Audit an existing agent for quality and reliability
  • Get a prioritized remediation plan with concrete next steps
  • Health-check a workflow after significant changes

Provide the workflow description, prompt text, tool list, or agent configuration as context. The more detail you provide, the more precise the findings.

How to Use

Use in O-mega

Claude Code

npx skills add github/awesome-copilot diagnose