atribuicao-de-falha

Diagnoses AI agent failures and assigns the correct control layer for each root cause.

1|Updated Jun 2, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/psiagoleal/ai-coding-agent-profiles --skill atribuicao-de-falha-psiagoleal
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: atribuicao-de-falha
Source: https://github.com/psiagoleal/ai-coding-agent-profiles/tree/main/skills/atribuicao-de-falha
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/psiagoleal/ai-coding-agent-profiles --skill atribuicao-de-falha-psiagoleal

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? When an AI coding agent makes a mistake, the reflex is to add another warning line to AGENTS.md — which rarely works because natural-language instructions are probabilistic. This Skill diagnoses where a failure actually originates (missing context, broken process, excessive authority, or missing evidence) and selects the control layer that actually prevents or detects it. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Four-origin diagnosis: Classifies failures as context (agent didn't know), process (didn't follow the flow), authority (shouldn't be able to), or evidence (nothing caught it), with decision tests to separate them. - Control selection matrix: Maps each origin to the right mechanism — AGENTS.md rules, skills, permissions in .claude/settings.json, readAllow, .claudeignore, tests, linters, PostToolUse hooks, or PR approval gates. - Replay-based verification: Requires reproducing the exact failing input to prove the control blocks or flags it, then versioning the fix with an ADR. - Use Case: An agent ran git push origin main without approval. Instead of writing "never push to main" in AGENTS.md, the Skill identifies this as an authority failure and adds a deny permission, then replays the command to confirm it is blocked. ## Quick Start Ask the agent to diagnose why it repeated a mistake and choose the right control layer instead of adding another rule to AGENTS.md.

Frequently Asked Questions about atribuicao-de-falha

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I stop an AI coding agent from repeating the same mistake?

First record the exact input, action, and effect to make the failure reproducible. Then classify the origin as context, process, authority, or evidence, and apply the matching control — a permission deny, test, hook, or skill — rather than adding another prompt instruction.

When should I use permissions instead of AGENTS.md rules for agents?

Use permissions when the agent could still violate the rule even if it knew it — that indicates an authority problem. Natural-language rules in AGENTS.md are probabilistic, while deny permissions, readAllow, and .claudeignore deterministically block sensitive actions.

What is the difference between a process failure and an evidence failure?

Ask whether the defect would still exist if the agent had followed the procedure correctly. If yes, the problem is missing evidence — you need a sensor like a test, linter, or PostToolUse hook. If no, the process itself needs a skill with explicit steps and criteria.

Why doesn't adding more instructions to AGENTS.md fix agent behavior?

Natural-language instructions compete for attention in the context window and are probabilistic by nature. Instructions orient behavior, but only permissions, schemas, tests, and linters actually prevent or detect violations — choose based on the cost of the error.

How do I verify that a fix for an agent failure actually works?

Replay the exact input that caused the original failure and confirm the control blocks or flags it — for example, the push command returns DENY. A promise from the agent not to repeat the mistake is not proof; the control must demonstrably fire.