Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsBlogPro
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges
  • Chrome Extension
  • Skill Manager

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Triage Agentic Approach

ASecurity

Decide whether a task should be an agent at all — and if so, single-agent vs multi-agent, the orchestration topology, and the framework — by traversing the agentic decision tree (agent-vs-workflow gate → single-vs-multi → topology → framework), returning a go/no-go verdict that defaults to 'a fixed workflow or a single LLM call wins' unless the control flow is genuinely unknowable in advance. Reach for this when the user asks 'should we build an agent for this?', 'do we need multiple agents?'...

7 stars
0 votes
0 copies
0 views
Added 9/23/2026
ai-agentsrustgorailsapi

Works with

api

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 9/23/2026

$npx -y skills add mcorbett51090/RavenClaude --skill triage-agentic-approach --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Triage Agentic Approach?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Triage Agentic Approach
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/mcorbett51090-triage-agentic-approach/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mcorbett51090-triage-agentic-approach)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: triage-agentic-approach
description: "Decide whether a task should be an agent at all — and if so, single-agent vs multi-agent, the orchestration topology, and the framework — by traversing the agentic decision tree (agent-vs-workflow gate → single-vs-multi → topology → framework), returning a go/no-go verdict that defaults to 'a fixed workflow or a single LLM call wins' unless the control flow is genuinely unknowable in advance. Reach for this when the user asks 'should we build an agent for this?', 'do we need multiple agents?', 'LangGraph or CrewAI or the OpenAI/Claude Agents SDK?', or 'is this an agent or just a workflow?'. Used by `agentic-systems-architect` (primary)."
---

# Skill: triage-agentic-approach

> **Invoked by:** `agentic-systems-architect` (primary). Also consulted by `agent-implementation-engineer` when a build reveals the task doesn't actually need the agentic machinery it was scoped with and should be re-triaged.
>
> **When to invoke:** "should we build an agent for this?"; "is this an agent or a workflow?"; "do we need multiple agents?"; "single agent with more tools, or a swarm?"; "which agent framework?"; any "how should we approach this agentically?" question.
>
> **Output:** a go/no-go verdict (defaulting to "a workflow or single call wins") + IF an agent survives: single-vs-multi + topology + framework + the cost/latency budget and guardrail level — every volatile framework/model fact dated and marked verify-at-use.

## Procedure

1. **Restate the task in the tree's terms.** Capture: the **goal** (what "done" means), whether the **steps are knowable in advance** (can you flowchart them?), whether the **step count is bounded**, what **tools/systems** it must touch and their **blast radius** (read-only vs writes to the real world), and the **cost/latency tolerance**.
2. **Run the agent-vs-not gate FIRST — this is the whole point.** The decisive question: **is the control flow knowable before runtime?**
   - **Yes, one shot** → a **single LLM call** with the right context (retrieval, examples, structured output). Stop here.
   - **Yes, multiple known steps** → a **workflow** (prompt chaining / routing / parallelization / orchestrator with *fixed* stages). Deterministic, debuggable, cheap. Stop here.
   - **No — the path genuinely varies per input and can't be enumerated** → an **agent** (LLM directs its own tool calls over an unknown number of steps). Only now proceed.
   - Default bias: **not an agent.** "It would be flexible/cool" is not a reason; unpredictable, variable-step tool use is.
3. **If an agent survives, decide single vs multi-agent.** Default to **one agent with a good tool set**. Justify each additional agent with a concrete reason: genuinely **parallel independent subtasks**, context that a **single window can't hold**, or a **hard trust/permission boundary**. No reason → single agent.
4. **Choose the topology (multi-agent only).** Orchestrator-worker / sequential pipeline / parallel fan-out + synthesizer. Name the **shared-state design** and the **failure blast radius**.
5. **Select the framework from the requirements.** Map: loop control, statefulness/checkpointing, streaming, multi-provider, human-in-the-loop, deployment target → LangGraph / OpenAI Agents SDK / CrewAI / AutoGen / Claude Agent SDK / plain SDK loop. Name the **lock-in** and the **escape hatch**; date every version-volatile capability.
6. **Set the budget and guardrail level.** A per-run **token/cost ceiling**, a **step/tool-call cap**, a **latency target**, and a **guardrail tier** sized to blast radius (read-only → light; real-world writes → human-in-the-loop on the irreversible step).

## Output format

- **Verdict:** single call / workflow / agent — with the one-line reason from the gate.
- **If agent:** single vs multi (+ topology), framework (+ lock-in/escape hatch), budget (tokens/steps/latency), guardrail tier.
- **If not an agent:** the concrete cheaper pattern to build instead, and what it would look like.
- **Volatile facts** (framework APIs, model IDs, context windows, pricing): each dated + `[verify-at-use]`.

## Guardrails

- **Default to not-an-agent.** The burden of proof is on the agent, not the workflow.
- **Never recommend multi-agent without a named reason** from step 3.
- **Never assert a framework capability from memory** — this landscape changes monthly; date it or verify it.

Attribution

mcorbett51090mcorbett51090
View sourceSee grades on GitHubMore from mcorbett51090 →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

Related Skills

Caveman

Terse caveman voice: answer first, fluff gone, every technical fact kept. Use for /caveman, "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "be brief", "less tokens". Stays on until "stop caveman" or "normal mode".

1100021 votes

Hyperplan

Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', ...

698461 votes

Writing Skills

Create and manage Claude Code skills in HASH repository following Anthropic best practices. Use when creating new skills, modifying skill-rules.json, understanding trigger patterns, working with hooks, debugging skill activation, or implementing progressive disclosure. Covers skill structure, YAML frontmatter, trigger types (keywords, intent patterns), UserPromptSubmit hook, and the 500-line rule. Includes validation and debugging with SKILL_DEBUG. Examples include rust-error-stack, cargo-dep...

3931 votes

Mcp Code Execution

Routes multi-tool workflows through MCP servers for large datasets and pipelines. Use when Bash tool overhead is limiting throughput on data-heavy tasks.

3421 votes

catchup

Recovers the conversation and failed tool calls of a previous Codex, Amp, Claude Code, Antigravity, Cline, Copilot CLI, Cursor, DeepSeek Harness, Grok Build, Kimi, OpenCode, Pi Agent, or ZCode session. Use when the user says "catch up", "what did the last session do", "get me up to speed", "I switched agents", asks to recover/summarize a previous session before continuing, or asks to diagnose or report a catchup failure. Do NOT use for the current conversation, git history, or any non-agent log.

741 votes
View all in ai-agents →