Review agent work for context poisoning, lost-in-the-middle failures, distraction, context clash, and stale carryover. Use before long-session handoffs, SET runner handoffs, skill changes, memory writes, or any task where too much or conflicting context may degrade behavior.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills --skill context-degradation-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Context Degradation Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/markoblogo-context-degradation-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: context-degradation-review
description: Review agent work for context poisoning, lost-in-the-middle failures, distraction, context clash, and stale carryover. Use before long-session handoffs, SET runner handoffs, skill changes, memory writes, or any task where too much or conflicting context may degrade behavior.
license: MIT
metadata:
abvx_status: experimental
abvx_origin: adapted
---
# Context Degradation Review
Use this skill to find when the context itself is making the agent worse.
## Use When
- a long session, handoff, or compaction summary may contain stale or conflicting instructions;
- a SET bundle, AGENTS.md, SKILL.md, or memory write mixes useful facts with outdated task history;
- the agent keeps optimizing for irrelevant prior work;
- tool output, logs, or retrieved docs may bury the decisive evidence;
- multiple sources disagree and the answer treats them as one coherent contract.
## Failure Modes
- `lost-in-middle`: key constraints are present but buried between low-signal material.
- `context-poisoning`: incorrect, stale, or speculative text is treated as authority.
- `distraction`: large but irrelevant context pulls work away from the current task.
- `context-clash`: two instructions, docs, memories, or artifacts conflict.
- `stale-carryover`: a prior goal continues after the user changed or stopped the task.
## Workflow
1. Identify the active task, current authority order, and expected output.
2. List the context sources used: user message, repo files, memory, docs, tool output, web sources, generated summaries.
3. Mark each source as `authoritative`, `supporting`, `stale-risk`, or `irrelevant`.
4. Check for the five failure modes above.
5. Propose the smallest context repair:
- remove or ignore a stale source;
- promote the decisive constraint near the active plan;
- split task history from durable guidance;
- ask for clarification only when the conflict blocks action;
- rewrite a handoff or memory proposal with source boundaries.
6. Continue only after the active context is narrow enough to act safely.
## Output Shape
Use:
- verdict: `CONTEXT_OK`, `CONTEXT_DEGRADED`, or `CONTEXT_BLOCKED`;
- active task;
- context sources reviewed;
- degradation findings by mode;
- smallest repair;
- remaining risk.
## Guardrails
- Do not use this as a generic writing critique.
- Do not remove context just because it is long; remove or demote it only when it is low-signal, stale, or conflicting.
- Do not treat memory as higher authority than the current user message.
- Do not let stale rollout context override an explicit stop, pause, or changed task.
## Provenance
Adapted from context degradation patterns in `muratcankoylan/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering`, narrowed into an ABVX review lens.

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!