mirror of
https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot.git
synced 2026-05-06 15:12:12 +00:00
Alejandro Fernando Suarez Gomez
107 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
107 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: diagnose
|
||
description: "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."
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# AI Workflow Diagnostics
|
||
|
||
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
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
╔══════════════════════════════════════╗
|
||
║ 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
|
||
|
||
| Score | Meaning | Recommended Action |
|
||
|-------|------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|
||
| 5 | Production-excellent | No action needed |
|
||
| 4 | Good with minor gaps | Polish prompt clarity or output schema |
|
||
| 3 | Functional but risky | Add error handling or reduce complexity |
|
||
| 2 | Significant issues | Immediate attention — add retries/guards |
|
||
| 1 | Broken or missing | Rebuild 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.
|