A collection of 6 structured, expert-level workflows that turn your AI coding assistant into a senior AI engineering partner. Each skill encodes a repeatable methodology — not just "ask AI to help," but a step-by-step decision framework with quantitative scoring, checklists, and decision trees.
The key difference from ad-hoc AI assistance: every workflow produces consistent, reproducible results regardless of who runs it or when. You can use the scoring systems as team baselines and write them into CI/CD pipelines.
Scores prompts across 8 dimensions (Clarity, Specificity, Completeness, Conciseness, Structure, Grounding, Safety, Robustness) on a 1-10 scale with weighted aggregation to a 0-100 score. Identifies the 3 weakest dimensions, generates targeted rewrites, and re-evaluates. Supports single prompt, A/B comparison, and batch evaluation modes.
Analyzes token distribution across 5 context zones (System, Few-shot, User input, Retrieval, Output) and produces an optimized allocation plan. Includes a compression strategy decision tree for each zone. Common finding: output zone squeezed to under 6% — this skill catches that before truncation happens.
Walks through a complete architecture decision tree: document format → parsing strategy → chunking approach (fixed/semantic/recursive) → embedding model selection → retrieval method (vector/keyword/hybrid) → evaluation metrics (Faithfulness, Relevancy, Context Precision). Covers Naive RAG, Advanced RAG, and Modular RAG patterns.
⚠️ AUTHORIZED USE ONLY This skill is for educational purposes or authorized security assessments only. You must have explicit, written permission from the system owner before using this tool. Misuse of this tool is illegal and strictly prohibited.
Executes a 65-point red-team audit across 5 attack categories: direct prompt injection, indirect prompt injection (via RAG documents), information extraction (system prompt / API key leakage), tool abuse (SQL injection, path traversal, command injection), and goal hijacking. The AI constructs adversarial test prompts for evaluation purposes, asks the user for confirmation before each test phase, judges pass/fail, and generates fix recommendations. All tests are contained within the evaluation context and do not interact with external systems. It is recommended to run audits in a sandboxed environment (Docker/VM).
Designs evaluation metric systems for LLM applications. Includes LLM-as-Judge scoring framework with bias mitigation strategies (position bias, verbosity bias, self-enhancement bias). Outputs CI/CD-ready evaluation pipeline templates.
A 5-phase guided conversation framework: dig into motivation → assess market opportunity → find the path → design scenarios → analyze competition. Useful for thinking through "should we build this?" before writing any code.
Ask: "Evaluate this system prompt"
You are a customer support agent. Help users with their questions. Be nice and helpful.
Result: Overall score 28/100. Weakest dimensions: Safety (1/10, zero injection protection), Specificity (2/10, no output format), Structure (2/10, no sections). Auto-rewrite scores 82/100 with added scope boundaries, response format, escalation rules, and safety guardrails.
Ask: "Run a security audit on my customer support agent"
Result: 65 tests executed. 3 critical failures found: Base64-encoded instruction bypass, path traversal via tool calls, system prompt extraction via role-play. Fix recommendations provided for each.
# Via skill install command (Claude Code / WorkBuddy / Cursor)
/skill install -g viliawang-pm/ai-engineering-toolkit
# Manual
git clone https://github.com/viliawang-pm/ai-engineering-toolkit.git
cp -r ai-engineering-toolkit/skills/* ~/.claude/skills/
Repository: github.com/viliawang-pm/ai-engineering-toolkit License: MIT