reliable ai assistant builder

    1

    Design high-reliability AI assistants with strict evidence guardrails, authority levels, and escalation paths.

    $5

    Secure checkout via Stripe

    Money-back guarantee

    Converts to your local currency at checkout

    Security scanned

    Works with the AI Agents you already use

    Claude CodeClaude CodeCursorCursorCodex CLICodex CLIMuseMuseDotsDots+21 more

    reliable ai assistant builder

    Example session with this skill installed

    Design a boundary contract for a medical clinical trials assistant. It uses our internal protocol DB (Primary) and PubMed (Secondary). It should never give medical advice.

    • Read your context and instructions
    • Compiled the reliable ai assistant

    I have designed the reliability framework for the Clinical Trials Assistant. This contract ensures the agent only cites internal protocols and peer-reviewed data while strictly enforcing the "no medical advice" boundary.

    Clinical Trials Assistant: Boundary Contract

    1. Approved Knowledge Sources

    Source IDURI/PathTypeFreshnessConfidence Weight
    PROTO-DBinternal://clinical-protocols/v1PrimaryReal-time1.0
    PUBMED-APIhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govSecondaryDaily0.7

    2. Evidence Taxonomy

    ClassificationMeaningConfidence Floor
    ConfirmedFound in PROTO-DB0.9
    InferredDerived from PROTO-DB + PUBMED-API0.6
    UnconfirmedOnly present in PUBMED-API0.4
    UnknownNo match in approved sources0.0

    3. Response Templates

    [CONFIRMED] Protocol detail: <content>
    Source: PROTO-DB
    Confidence: 0.95
    
    [BOUNDARY VIOLATION] I cannot provide medical advice or treatment recommendations.
    Reason: Medical Advice Restriction (Safety Policy)
    Escalation: Contact the Clinical Safety Board.
    

    4. Escalation Routes

    Failure ModeEscalation TargetSLA
    Conflicting ProtocolsLead Trial Coordinator4 hours
    Medical Advice RequestChief Medical Officer (Log only)Immediate
    Source Connection ErrorIT DevOps1 hour

    Next steps

    1. Review the confidence weights for PubMed sources.
    2. Integrate the Boundary Violation template into your system prompt.
    3. Run the adversarial test suite to ensure "medical advice" queries are blocked.

    Connects securely to your tools. The creator never sees your data.

    About this skill

    The problem

    LLMs frequently hallucinate policies, invent data when sources are missing, or take unauthorized actions because they lack clear operational boundaries. Without a formal evidence contract, agents become a liability in regulated or high-stakes environments.

    What it does

    • Generates a formal boundary contract defining approved knowledge sources and their confidence weights.
    • Establishes an evidence taxonomy (Confirmed, Inferred, Unconfirmed, Unknown) with specific confidence floors.
    • Defines a 4-tier authority hierarchy to manage system, domain, and user-level overrides.
    • Builds structured response templates for handling missing, conflicting, or adversarial inputs.
    • Codifies escalation routes and SLAs for human-in-the-loop intervention.

    Why this beats prompting it yourself

    Standard prompting relies on the model's "best effort" to be honest. This skill implements a systematic engineering framework that forces the model to categorize its own evidence before responding. It replaces vague "be helpful" instructions with a rigorous test-driven protocol that includes adversarial and ambiguity checks.

    Use cases

    • Deploying customer support agents for highly regulated insurance or legal policies.
    • Building internal knowledge bots that must cite specific documentation and escalate when sources conflict.
    • Creating enterprise AI "constitutions" to prevent prompt injection and unauthorized policy interpretations.
    • Auditing existing agent configurations for reliability gaps and hallucination risks.

    Known limitations

    Does not handle UI copywriting or creative writing tasks. Requires an initial list of approved data sources to be effective.

    Requires pre-defined data sources and domain knowledge. Not designed for creative or non-factual tasks. Freshness monitoring must be implemented externally.

    How to use

    1. 1

      Connect your agent to the Agensi MCP

      Copy the prompt and paste it into Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor or any agent that supports MCP. It sets up the connection for you. Manual setup

    2. 2

      Sign in to Agensi

      Your agent shows a sign-in link. Sign in and click Allow.

    3. 3

      Ask for what you need

      Your agent loads this skill and uses it on your task. It always asks before any payment.

    Reviews

    No reviews yet

    Be one of the first to try it. Every listed skill goes through the trust checks below.

    Security scanned

    Checked by our 8-point scan before listing

    Fresh listing

    Recently published to Agensi

    Money-back guarantee

    Doesn't do what its page promises? You get your money back.

    Trust & safety

    Security scan

    Security scan passed 1 month ago

    Permissions

    No special permissions declared or detected

    Listed1 month ago

    What's inside

    Frequently Asked Questions

    This skill implements a rigorous engineering framework that forces the model to categorize evidence and adhere to a 4-tier authority hierarchy, preventing the hallucinations and policy inventions common in standard 'best effort' prompting.

    The framework is model-agnostic and compatible with any major LLM (such as GPT-4, Claude, or Gemini) that supports structured output and complex system instructions.

    You will receive the complete reliability architecture, including the formal boundary contract, evidence taxonomy protocols, and structured response templates ready for implementation in your environment.

    Setup involves defining your approved data sources and authority levels; the skill then generates the specific guardrail configurations and escalation routes tailored to your operational requirements.

    Yes, this skill is specifically designed to handle 'no-source' or 'conflicting-source' scenarios by using a codified evidence taxonomy that triggers human escalation instead of making a best guess.

    New in Prompt & Skill Engineering