Agent skill

manager-prototype

Demonstrates the Manager Pattern: Task does work, Forked Skill audits, Manager retries if needed. Use when iterative quality control is needed and audit must be isolated from implementation history.

Stars 163
Forks 31

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/tree/main/skills/other/other/manager-prototype

SKILL.md

Manager Pattern: Build → Audit → Retry

This skill demonstrates a Manager that orchestrates Worker Tasks and Forked Auditors with retry logic.

Pattern Architecture

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Main: Skill(manager-prototype)                      │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                        │
                        ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Manager (this skill, shared context)                │
│ - Tracks: attempt_count, errors[], current_draft    │
│ - Orchestrates: Task(builder) + Skill(auditor)      │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
              │                    │
              ▼                    ▼
┌─────────────────────┐   ┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Task(builder)       │   │ Skill(auditor)          │
│ - Fresh context     │   │ - context: fork         │
│ - Does the work     │   │ - agent: Explore        │
│ - Returns draft     │   │ - Pure audit (no bias)  │
└─────────────────────┘   └─────────────────────────┘

Why This Pattern?

Without Manager With Manager + Forked Auditor
Main sees: "try 1 fail", "try 2 fail", "try 3 pass" Main sees: only final "Done"
Auditor sees: 20 messages of struggling Auditor sees: only the draft
Retry logic pollutes main context Retry logic isolated in Manager

Implementation

Step 1: Manager Invokes Builder Task

markdown
# Invoke Task to do the work
Task(builder-unit, agent="general-purpose")

# Task runs in forked context, returns draft to Manager

Step 2: Manager Invokes Forked Auditor

markdown
# Invoke auditor with context: fork (ISOLATED)
Skill(quality-auditor)

# Auditor sees ONLY:
# - CLAUDE.md
# - The draft (passed as argument)
# - Its own SKILL.md
#
# Auditor does NOT see:
# - Previous 5 failed attempts
# - Manager's retry logic
# - Any implementation history

Step 3: Auditor Returns Pass/Fail

markdown
# quality-auditor.skILL.md:
---
context: fork
agent: Explore
---

## Audit Result

### Draft: {passed content}
### Status: PASS | FAIL

### Issues Found:
- {issue 1}
- {issue 2}

### Recommendation:
{fix guidance}

Step 4: Manager Retries or Returns

markdown
# In Manager:
If audit.status == "FAIL":
    Spawn Task(builder-unit) again  # Fresh context
    Increment attempt_count
Else:
    Return "Done" to Main

Complete Workflow Example

markdown
# MAIN CONTEXT:
Skill(manager-prototype)

# MANAGER (this skill):
1. Invoke: Task(builder-unit) with "Create a skill for X"
2. Receive: draft_skill.md content
3. Invoke: Skill(quality-auditor) with draft_skill.md
4. Receive: {status: "FAIL", issues: ["missing frontmatter"]}
5. If attempt_count < 3:
   - Invoke: Task(builder-unit) with "Fix missing frontmatter"
   - Receive: revised_draft
   - Invoke: Skill(quality-auditor) with revised_draft
   - Receive: {status: "PASS"}
6. Return: "Skill created in 2 attempts. All quality gates passed."

# MAIN CONTEXT SEES ONLY:
"Skill created in 2 attempts. All quality gates passed."

Alternative: Inline Iteration (Simpler)

markdown
❌ MORE COMPLEX: Manager Pattern
Task(builder-unit)  # Fork 1
→ Skill(auditor)    # Fork 2
→ Task(builder-unit) # Fork 3 (retry)
→ Skill(auditor)    # Fork 4 (re-audit)

✅ SIMPLER: Inline iteration
Task(builder-unit)  # Single fork
# Builder handles its own iteration internally
# Returns final result

When Manager Pattern IS Worth It

Scenario Why Use
Auditor must be unbiased Forked auditor never sees implementation history
Complex multi-phase work Task handles phases, Auditor validates result
External quality standards Auditor enforces rules, Task focuses on content
Audit is expensive Don't repeat audit if Task can self-correct

When to Avoid

Scenario Why Avoid
Simple retry logic Inline Task iteration is simpler
Single-pass quality check Task + final audit is enough
Low iteration count Overhead not justified
Auditor is cheap Can audit after each attempt inline

Key Insight: Context Accumulation

The Manager accumulates history (each retry adds messages). The Auditor is isolated (never sees retries).

Manager Context:
[Attempt 1: draft v1]
[Audit: FAIL - missing X]
[Attempt 2: draft v2]
[Audit: FAIL - missing Y]
[Attempt 3: draft v3]
[Audit: PASS]
→ Manager is "heavy" but that's OK

Auditor Context (each time):
[Only: draft v1] → FAIL
[Only: draft v2] → FAIL
[Only: draft v3] → PASS
→ Auditor is always "light" and unbiased

Cost/Benefit Summary

Aspect Cost Benefit
Complexity High (3 components, retry logic) Clean separation of concerns
Token usage Multiple forks (4+ invocations) Isolation reduces audit overhead
Context Manager accumulates retry history Auditor stays pure (no history)
Reliability More chances for failure Each attempt is fresh

Recommendation

Use this pattern when:

  • Quality audit is complex and must be unbiased
  • Implementation requires multiple iterations
  • The work product is high-stakes

Use simpler alternatives when:

  • Single-pass is sufficient
  • Retry logic is simple (inline is fine)
  • Auditor can be invoked once at the end

P1 Use Case: Skill Creation Pipeline

This is the highest-value use case for thecattolkit: creating skills with automatic quality validation.

Architecture

Main → Skill(skill-manager)
       → Task(create-skill)
       → Skill(quality-standards, context: fork)
         → Returns: Pass/Fail + issues
       → If Fail: Retry Task(create-skill)
       → If Pass: Return "Skill created"

quality-standards skill has:
- context: fork (isolated auditor)
- agent: Explore (read-only)

Why This Works for Skill Creation

Requirement How Manager Pattern Addresses It
Frontmatter validation quality-standards checks What-When-Not format
Navigation table Validates "If you need X → Read Y" structure
critical_constraint footer Ensures non-negotiable rules present
References structure Verifies references/ is justified or empty
Unbiased audit Auditor never sees "I tried 5 times"

Example Flow

markdown
# User requests:
"Create a skill for processing images"

# Main invokes:
Skill(skill-manager)

# Manager executes:
1. Task(create-skill) with:
   - name: image-processor
   - description: "Process images..."
   - template: skill-development

2. Receives: draft_SKILL.md (missing frontmatter!)

3. Invokes: Skill(quality-standards)
   - Passes: draft_SKILL.md
   - Auditor reads draft (sees ONLY the draft)
   - Returns: {status: "FAIL", issues: ["Missing frontmatter"]}

4. Manager retries:
   - Task(create-skill) with: "Fix: add frontmatter with What-When-Not"

5. Receives: revised_draft (has frontmatter now)

6. Invokes: Skill(quality-standards)
   - Returns: {status: "FAIL", issues: ["Missing navigation table"]}

7. Manager retries:
   - Task(create-skill) with: "Fix: add navigation table"

8. Receives: final_draft (all gates pass)

9. Returns: "Skill 'image-processor' created. 2 attempts. All quality gates passed."

quality-standards as Forked Auditor

yaml
# .claude/skills/quality-standards/SKILL.md
---
name: quality-standards
description: "Verify completion with evidence..."
context: fork    # Critical: isolates from retry history
agent: Explore   # Critical: read-only, cannot modify files
auto_load_triggers:
  - pattern: "\\.claude/skills/"
    skill: "skill-development
---

Key configuration:

  • context: fork → Auditor never sees implementation attempts
  • agent: Explore → Cannot accidentally modify files during audit
  • auto_load_triggers → Auto-invoked when skills are modified

When P1 This Pattern is Worth It

Skill Creation Scenario Use Manager Pattern
Complex multi-section skill ✅ Yes (multiple quality gates)
Teaching new developers ✅ Yes (enforces standards)
Batch skill creation ✅ Yes (consistent quality)
Simple one-line skill ❌ No (overkill)
Quick prototype ❌ No (inline is fine)

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results