ai-agent-reliability
Make an AI agent or automation reliable enough to trust — the tests, checks, and guardrails that catch its failures before they reach anything real. Use when asked how do I test my AI agent, make my automation reliable, my agent works sometimes, or how do I trust an AI workflow in production. Produces a map of where the agent can fail (bad input, hallucination, wrong tool call, edge cases, silent errors), the checks that catch each (validation, evals on real cases, human-in-the-loop gates, monitoring), a right-sized reliability plan scaled to the stakes, and a rollout that earns trust incrementally — so an agent that works in a demo becomes one that works in reality. For builders putting AI agents into real workflows.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/ai-agent-reliability && cp -r /tmp/ai-agent-reliability/exports/openclaw/ai-agent-reliability ~/.claude/skills/ai-agent-reliabilitySKILL.md
# AI-Agent Reliability An AI agent that works in a demo and one you can trust in production are different things — the gap is everything that happens when input is messy, the model hallucinates, a tool call goes wrong, or an error fails silently. This maps where your agent can fail and the specific checks that catch each, scaled to the stakes, plus a rollout that earns trust incrementally — so "works sometimes" becomes "works reliably." ## What This Skill Produces - **A failure map** — where this agent can go wrong: bad/unexpected input, hallucinated output, wrong or malformed tool calls, unhandled edge cases, silent failures, and runaway loops - **The catching checks per failure** — input validation, output verification, evals on real cases, schema/format checks on tool calls, human-in-the-loop gates, and monitoring/alerts - **An eval approach** — testing on a real set of cases (including the hard ones) so quality is measured, not assumed, and regressions are caught - **Human-in-the-loop placement** — where a human must approve, scaled to consequence (irreversible/external actions gated, low-stakes automated) - **A right-sized plan** — reliability effort matched to the stakes, not gold-plating a low-risk toy or under-testing a high-risk system - **A trust-building rollout** — shadow mode → low-stakes → expand, with monitoring, rather than shipping it everywhere and hoping ## Required Inputs Ask for these if not provided: - **The agent** — what it does, what tools/actions it takes, what it touches - **The stakes** — what a failure costs (drives how hard to test and gate) - **Where it fails now** — the flakiness you've seen (points at the weak spots) - **Your setup** — the framework/tools, and whether you can add evals/monitoring ## Framework: Map Failures, Catch Each, Earn Trust 1. **Enumerate the failure modes.** Walk the agent's path — input, reasoning, tool calls, output, actions — and name where each step can break. You can't guard what you haven't named. 2. **Attach a check to each.** Validation for input, verification for output, schema checks for tool calls, evals for quality, gates for consequential actions — a specific catch per failure. 3. **Build real evals.** A set of representative and hard cases, scored — so you know it works and catch regressions before users do. 4. **Gate by consequence.** Irreversible or external actions get a human check; low-stakes steps run free. Match the gate to the cost. 5. **Right-size it.** Don't over-engineer a low-risk helper or under-test a system that moves money or data — effort follows stakes. 6. **Roll out to earn trust.** Shadow mode, then low-stakes live, then expand — with monitoring and alerts — so reliability is proven, not assumed. ## Output Format ### Agent reliability: [what it does] · stakes [level] **Failure map:** [bad input · hallucination · wrong tool call · edge cases · silent errors · runaway loops]. **Catch each:** [failure → the check: validation / verification / schema / eval / human gate / monitor]. **Evals:** [the real + hard cases to test on, scored]. **Human gates:** [the consequential actions that need approval]. **Right-sized:** [effort matched to stakes — where to invest, where not]. **Rollout:** [shadow → low-stakes → expand, with monitoring]. ## Quality Checks - [ ] Enumerates failure modes across the agent's whole path - [ ] Attaches a specific check to each failure - [ ] Includes evals on real and hard cases, scored - [ ] Gates consequential actions with a human; automates low-stakes - [ ] Scales effort to stakes; rolls out to build trust incrementally ## Anti-Patterns - **Shipping a demo** as if it's production-ready. - **No evals** — quality assumed, regressions invisible. - **The same trust level** for a summary and a money transfer. - **Gold-plating a toy** or under-testing a high-stakes system. - **Big-bang launch** with no shadow mode or monitoring. ## Example Trigger Phrases - "How do I test my AI agent so I can actually trust it?" - "My automation works sometimes — how do I make it reliable?" - "How do I put an AI workflow into production safely?" - "What checks does my agent need before I let it run on real data?" - "How do I know my agent won't do something dumb and irreversible?"
Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.
Decode a 401k or workplace retirement plan — the real cost of its funds, the match's fine print, vesting math, and the plan features worth using or avoiding. Use when someone asks 'is my 401k any good', 'decode my 401k plan', 'which funds should I look at', or 'what fees am I paying'. Produces a fee decode in dollars-over-time, match and vesting math, a fund-lineup triage by cost, and the questions for HR or the plan administrator.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests for product features, UI changes, onboarding flows, and pricing experiments. Use when asked to set up an experiment, design an A/B test, calculate sample size, or interpret test results. Produces a complete test plan with hypothesis, variant definitions, sample size, duration estimate, guardrail metrics, and a results interpretation guide.
Analyse a finished A/B test and write the readout — the result, whether it's statistically and practically significant, what it means, and the ship/no-ship call. Use when asked to analyse experiment results, write an A/B test readout, interpret test data, or decide whether to ship a variant. Produces a clear verdict with the lift and confidence, segment cuts, the risks (peeking, novelty, sample), and a recommendation. Distinct from planning a test — this reads results.
Generate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.
Plan a trip that actually works with a disability or access need — confirm real accessibility (not just 'accessible' labels), book the assistance in advance, plan for equipment and medication, and build in the contingencies for when access breaks down. Use when someone says 'plan an accessible trip', 'travelling with a wheelchair/disability', 'book assistance for my flight', or 'will this hotel actually work for me'. Produces an access-verified itinerary, an assistance-booking checklist, an equipment/medication plan, and contingency scripts. Verify specifics with providers.
Request a reasonable accommodation at work or in education — frame it around the barrier and the adjustment (not your diagnosis), cite the right process, and navigate the back-and-forth constructively. Use when someone says 'I need a workplace accommodation', 'request reasonable adjustments', 'ADA/Equality Act accommodation', or 'how do I ask for accommodations for my disability/condition'. Produces the request letter, a barriers-and-adjustments map, disclosure guidance, and a plan for the interactive process. Not legal advice — routes to the formal process and to advocacy where needed.
Build a structured account plan for any key customer or target account. Use when asked to create an account plan, key account strategy, strategic account review, or territory plan. Produces a complete account plan with relationship map, growth opportunities, risks, and 90-day action plan.