ai-engineering

Reviews and builds LLM prompts, tool-using agent loops, RAG pipelines, and model evaluations.

22|Updated Sep 10, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Lynricsy/HyperSkills --skill ai-engineering-lynricsy
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: ai-engineering
Source: https://github.com/Lynricsy/HyperSkills/tree/main/skills/ai-engineering
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Lynricsy/HyperSkills --skill ai-engineering-lynricsy

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill requires tiktoken, and includes scripts (resource) and references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? LLM application code fails in ways that pass code review: prompt injection through tool results, retries that re-execute refunds, context budgets measured with character heuristics, and evals whose average score hides catastrophic regressions. This Skill encodes 25 incident-derived rules and gated workflows to catch those defects before they ship. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Review workflow: Audits model-calling code against a trust-boundary map, tool reversibility table, budget checks, and output-contract rules, with every finding tied to the observable failure it causes. - Build workflows: Step-by-step checklists for writing tool-using agent loops (turn caps, idempotency keys, per-phase tool sets) and RAG pipelines (chunking units, relevance floors, citation ids, embedding symmetry). - Evaluation workflow: Designs per-case pass/fail gates with must-never-fail sets, held-out leakage control, judge bias mitigations, and trajectory assertions instead of average scores. - Use Case: Given a support-agent loop that issued wrong refunds and burned $190 on one ticket, the review workflow identifies the tool-result-as-user-turn injection path, the missing turn cap, and the retry wrapper multiplying paid requests. ## Quick Start Ask the agent to review your agent loop, RAG pipeline, or eval harness file using the ai-engineering skill and list each defect with the failure it causes.

Frequently Asked Questions about ai-engineering

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I review an LLM agent loop for production failures?

Map every input that reaches the prompt and mark which ones third parties can write, then check each tool for reversibility and idempotency, verify turn cap, deadline, and spend cap exist, and confirm retries wrap only the model call. Each finding must name the observable failure it produces.

How do I build a RAG pipeline that stops giving wrong answers?

Separate the retrieval unit from the storage unit by chunking documents, set a relevance floor instead of top-k alone, assert index and query embeddings use the same model and dimension, and place chunks in a labelled data region with citation ids required in the answer.

Why does my nightly LLM eval pass even when the system ships bugs?

An average-score gate cannot be moved by one catastrophic case among hundreds, so regressions pass. Use per-case pass/fail with a named must-never-fail set, assert code-checkable properties instead of asking a judge, and fail the case when the judge reply is unparseable.

Does strict JSON schema mode keep optional fields optional?

No. Under strict schema mode every property becomes required and language-level defaults stop applying, so an Optional field is emitted as null on every call. Code testing key membership instead of the value will crash on NoneType.

When should I not use an agent loop for an LLM task?

Skip the loop when the steps are known in advance, one call with a schema would do, the task is classification, or determinism is required. A fixed sequence of calls is cheaper, faster, and removes the chance of the model picking the wrong tool.

Why is len(text) // 4 wrong for estimating LLM context tokens?

The four-characters-per-token heuristic underestimates JSON records by about 41% and identifier-heavy payloads by about 67%, which is exactly the content tool results contain. Measure with the provider's tokenizer, count endpoint, or the usage numbers from the previous response.