SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

AI Engineering · Version 1.0.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

AI Skill Failure Learning Agent

Make AI behavior measurable and safer for skill failure capture and skill failure clustering with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 5 documented failure modes 5 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Captures real skill failures, clusters recurring mechanisms, and chooses targeted repair versus structural refactoring. It grounds the decision in the triggering request, selected skill, observed behavior, expected behavior, tools, context, and prior similar failures and explicitly prevents patching every failure example into instructions until the skill becomes contradictory and expensive.

₹299 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools.

What this skill helps you do

  • Skill failure capture
  • Skill failure clustering
  • Skill hardening recommendation

How AI Skill Failure Learning Agent works

You provide

The skill files, sibling catalog, host rules, observed failures, and evaluation cases

It inspects

Trigger overlap, authority, context cost, and enforcement paths for skill failure capture

It decides

A skill failure clustering change with regression cases and destination constraints

You verify

The installed portfolio routes a labeled intent corpus correctly and every declared reference resolves

What it checks first

AI Skill Failure Learning Skill captures real skill failures, clusters recurring mechanisms, and chooses targeted repair versus structural refactoring. It grounds the decision in the triggering request, selected skill, observed behavior, expected behavior, tools, context, and prior similar failures and explicitly prevents patching every failure example into instructions until the skill becomes contradictory and expensive. Use it when the work involves Skill failure capture, Skill failure clustering, Skill hardening recommendation.

  1. Trigger precision against neighboring skills, because an excellent method is useless when the wrong requests invoke it.
  2. Whether the skill encodes stable decision knowledge or merely restates a host operation that belongs in a tool or script.
  3. The complete authority chain from instruction to tool call, including confirmation requirements and failure propagation.
  4. Runtime context cost from always-loaded instructions, references, examples, and sibling overlap.
  5. Evaluation coverage for positive, negative, ambiguous, missing-evidence, and conflicting-skill requests.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • Two skills claim the same intent and route nondeterministically depending on superficial wording.
  • A role-style prompt describes expertise but provides no ordered method, refusal boundary, or verifiable deliverable.
  • Detailed references load on every invocation and crowd out the user evidence needed for the actual decision.
  • A skill assumes tools or permissions the host does not provide and converts unavailable execution into confident prose.
  • A narrow failure is patched with another exception until the skill contains contradictory routing and behavior rules.

Answers it will reject

  • Adding every observed failure example to the primary file instead of fixing the shared mechanism or evaluation gap.
  • Combining unrelated jobs into one large skill because they happen to use the same tool.
  • Claiming a skill is portable while hard-coding one host command, repository layout, or authentication model.
  • Judging quality from one successful demonstration without testing sibling routing and negative cases.

Decision rules it applies

  • Split skills when their triggers, evidence, authority, or deliverables differ; share references only when the decision method is genuinely common.
  • Keep routing, safety, and the minimal workflow in the primary file, loading detailed knowledge only when the task requires it.
  • Promote repeated and stable know-how into a skill; leave one-off execution details in a task plan or script.
  • A skill change is incomplete until the original failure becomes a regression case and previously passing cases remain protected.

Evidence it asks for

  • Run a labeled intent corpus through the complete installed skill set and record selected, missed, and competing routes.
  • Measure primary-file and loaded-reference token counts before and after structural changes.
  • Validate every referenced path, declared tool, and output schema from a clean installation.
  • Execute positive, negative, ambiguous, and tool-failure evaluation cases against the final packaged revision.

The method inside

  1. Establish what is actually true about skill failure capture from the supplied evidence, and mark what is missing.
  2. Identify the mechanism behind skill failure clustering rather than restating the symptom.
  3. Choose the smallest defensible change for skill hardening recommendation, weighing impact, confidence, effort, and reversibility.
  4. Measure quality, safety, latency, and cost separately

Deliverables

  • Skill failure capture assessment
  • Skill failure clustering decision and action plan
  • Skill hardening recommendation verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Prompts, model/version, tools, retrieval path, and examples
  • Evaluation dataset and failure cases
  • Latency, cost, privacy, and policy constraints

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Apply the ai skill failure learning agent to our current skill failure capture work. We need a concrete decision, bounded changes, and evidence that the result is correct.

Expected output

Start with the triggering request, selected skill, observed behavior, expected behavior, tools, context, and prior similar failures. The highest-risk failure is patching every failure example into instructions until the skill becomes contradictory and expensive. Use targeted repairs for isolated boundary misses and structural changes for repeated routing or method failures. Verify the result by adding the failure and negative neighbors to the evaluation corpus and checking old cases still pass.

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Skill failure capture: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Skill failure clustering: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Skill hardening recommendation: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Treating prompt text as a security boundary
  • Claiming model quality from a handful of demos

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.