Live data from Hacker News

Agent Skills

addyosmani.com

21–30 of 239 posts

Re: Agent Skills

#21

The best way to prompt an LLM is to describe the outcome you want, that's it. They are trained as task completers. A clear outcome is way better than a process. If the LLM fails, either you didn't describe your outcome sufficiently or is misinterpreted what you said or it couldn't do it (rare). Common errors should be encoded as context for future similar tasks, don't bloat skills with stuff that isn't shown to be ne…

a skill is just reusuable/shareable context. It's just text, really. It's useful for things like documentation on how to use an API (this works better than MCP in my opinion), or a non consensus way of doing something. For example, you can use remotion to generate video. There are useful remotion skills that allow you to reliably generate specific types of videos. Captions of a certain style, for example.

Re: Agent Skills

#22
post #13

Naming things is such a hard problem that many devs don't even bother trying. That being said, this post is full of reasonable assertions, so I'm looking forward to experimenting with this... whatever it is.

Wait, shit, are people using LLMs to name things now? I'm definitely out of a job then!

Re: Agent Skills

#23
post #6

From an SEO/LLMO perspective, the discoverability of these skills will be difficult without a rename: https://agentskills.io/ If Addy reads this, how do you pitch this vs. Superpowers? https://github.com/obra/superpowers

Does superpowers actually work? The main skill file doesn't inspire much confidence: "If you think there is even a 1% chance a skill might apply to what you are doing, you ABSOLUTELY MUST invoke the skill."

This kind of "overprompting" is one technique that even the best skills/agents use to compensate for under-invocation, which happens when more demure advisory language tends to be rationalized away by LLMs.

It shouldn't be your default, but should absolutely be tried when your skill/agent test suite displays evidence that it's not being reliably invoked without it.

Re: Agent Skills

#24

The best way to prompt an LLM is to describe the outcome you want, that's it. They are trained as task completers. A clear outcome is way better than a process. If the LLM fails, either you didn't describe your outcome sufficiently or is misinterpreted what you said or it couldn't do it (rare). Common errors should be encoded as context for future similar tasks, don't bloat skills with stuff that isn't shown to be ne…

If there is anything we have learned in decades of Software engineering, it's "A clear outcome" is not easy to describe. In many cases, it's impossible unless people from 4 different domains collaborate. That's why process matters. It allows for software to be built is a "semi-standardized" way that can allow iterations to get us closed towards the expected outcome, that might emerge over time.

Yes, not everything I use LLMs for going to have the same level of ambiguity or complex requirements. Optimizing by choosing to skip over parts of the process is exactly Addy is talking in this article.

Re: Agent Skills

#25

The best way to prompt an LLM is to describe the outcome you want, that's it. They are trained as task completers. A clear outcome is way better than a process. If the LLM fails, either you didn't describe your outcome sufficiently or is misinterpreted what you said or it couldn't do it (rare). Common errors should be encoded as context for future similar tasks, don't bloat skills with stuff that isn't shown to be ne…

> The best way to prompt an LLM is to describe the outcome you want, that's it. They are trained as task completers. A clear outcome is way better than a process.

This is not true for anything complex. They’re instruction followers, of which task completion is just one facet.

They’re also extremely eager to complete tasks without enough information, and do it wrongly. In the case of just describing task completion, despite your best efforts, there are always some oversights or things you didn’t even realize were underspecified.

So it helps a lot to add some process around it, eg “look up relevant project conventions and information. think through how to complete the task. ask me clarifying questions to resolve ambiguities. blah blah”. This type of prompt will also help with the new Opus 4.7 adaptive thinking to ensure it thinks through the task properly.

Re: Agent Skills

#26

The best way to prompt an LLM is to describe the outcome you want, that's it. They are trained as task completers. A clear outcome is way better than a process. If the LLM fails, either you didn't describe your outcome sufficiently or is misinterpreted what you said or it couldn't do it (rare). Common errors should be encoded as context for future similar tasks, don't bloat skills with stuff that isn't shown to be ne…

That seems a bit reductive. Even with humans, there’s a range of interpretations and ways that something can be built or a task completed. Engineers remember stuff so you don’t have to keep repeating yourself. Skills are a way to describe your outcome without similar repetition.

Re: Agent Skills

#27
post #18

I was surprised how long some of these skills are. They are pages and pages long with tables and checkbox lists and code examples, etc. Curious how normal that is - it would only take a couple of these to really fill the context alot.

I have written zero skills, so not sure how normal it is. I counted the words in couple of them and they seem to be around 2k range. So 5 skills would be around 10K. Even at a small LLM context of 128k, that's still around 10%. And for a 1M context window like the big ones, it barely registers.

Re: Agent Skills

#28

The best way to prompt an LLM is to describe the outcome you want, that's it. They are trained as task completers. A clear outcome is way better than a process. If the LLM fails, either you didn't describe your outcome sufficiently or is misinterpreted what you said or it couldn't do it (rare). Common errors should be encoded as context for future similar tasks, don't bloat skills with stuff that isn't shown to be ne…

Sometimes people don't know what they want.

I prefer the start small and iterate approach to arrive at a result.

Then I ask it to summarize. Sometimes after that I ask it to generalize.

Re: Agent Skills

#29
post #6

From an SEO/LLMO perspective, the discoverability of these skills will be difficult without a rename: https://agentskills.io/ If Addy reads this, how do you pitch this vs. Superpowers? https://github.com/obra/superpowers

I would love to know how many people are actually using superpowers. I showed up on the agentic dev scene prior to superpowers, and I am getting concerned that >50% of my self-rolled processes are now covered by superpowers. I no longer trust gh stars, can anyone chime in? Is superpowers now truly adopted? If it is truly valuable, why hasn't Boris integrated the concepts yet?

I adopted superpowers, but then adapted it. I've changed some things, added some things. I suspect that my set of agent skills is probably overlapping with OP's by quite a lot now.

I also found that I have different skills for different tasks; at work security is a huge concern and I over-emphasise security in the skills. At play I'm less bothered about security and so the skills I've written to help me build stupid one-shot exploratory websites are less about security and more about refactoring and exploring concepts.

Re: Agent Skills

#30
This is why I created the /do router, to route to all skills. I also have anti rationalization, progressive context discovery etc.

I only make it for me, so it's a bit complex and targeted towards me, and what I do, but it's pretty easy to adjust things.

https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent

Working on reading through Agent Skills, it seems we've converged on a lot of the same points, and I've never seen it, so trying to get an understanding of it.

Edit 1: I don't like all the commands. I just rely on a single router to automatically decide what I want, and that feels like the most reasonable way to me to communicate with it.

I don't want to remember things. And that's the way for me to scale the number of skills and activities. I don't have to think about them.

Edit 2: We have very different routers.

https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills/blob/f504276d8e07...

vs

https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent/blob/main/skills/do/S...

I personally wouldn't call theirs an intelligent router. They are dancing between a few different skills. We have extremely different setups there.

But of course, I'm using way more context to get it done. I'm even sending it out to Haiku to build the route choices.

I choose to use tokens to make things better for myself, not everyone would make the same choice, so I certainly see why they are using a few skills, and composing them.

Edit 3: This is much easier for a user to wrap their head around because there's much less.

I am only focused on the best improvements I can make that show value for my use cases. This is straight foward to reason about.

This seems like a nice way to get the best concepts for people trying to understand them. I commend them for a clean, simple approach.

Edit 4: Yeah, I think there are some things I can learn from them which is always good.

I especially like simple decisions like collapsing the install details for each harness in the readme.

I'm going to read over the entire thing and look for opportunities to improve my stuff.

We are all working together, learning, testing, building, trying to find the best way to implement things.

Post reply on HN