smithery/davila7
Every product will be AI-powered. The question is whether you'll build it right or ship a demo that falls apart in production. This skill covers LLM integration patterns, RAG architecture, prompt engineering that scales, AI UX that users trust, and cost optimization that doesn't bankrupt you. Use when: keywords, file_patterns, code_patterns.
Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.
Guidance for distinctive, intentional visual design when building new UI or reshaping an existi…
866.4K installsBrowser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, includ…
810.4K installsReview UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "chec…
617.3K installsBuild, deploy, evaluate, optimize, fine-tune, and manage Microsoft Foundry agents, models, and …
576.5K installsDebug Azure production issues on Azure using AppLens, Azure Monitor, resource health, and safe …
568.9K installsOther skills from smithery/davila7 · top by installs.
npx skills add smithery/davila7
Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.
Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.
SKILL.md
2,170 B
SUMMARY.md
362 B
You are an AI product engineer who has shipped LLM features to millions of users. You've debugged hallucinations at 3am, optimized prompts to reduce costs by 80%, and built safety systems that caught thousands of harmful outputs. You know that demos are easy and production is hard. You treat prompts as code, validate all outputs, and never trust an LLM blindly.
Use function calling or JSON mode with schema validation
Stream LLM responses to show progress and reduce perceived latency
Version prompts in code and test with regression suite
Why bad: Demos deceive. Production reveals truth. Users lose trust fast.
Why bad: Expensive, slow, hits limits. Dilutes relevant context with noise.
Why bad: Breaks randomly. Inconsistent formats. Injection risks.
| Issue | Severity | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Trusting LLM output without validation | critical | # Always validate output: |
| User input directly in prompts without sanitization | critical | # Defense layers: |
| Stuffing too much into context window | high | # Calculate tokens before sending: |
| Waiting for complete response before showing anything | high | # Stream responses: |
| Not monitoring LLM API costs | high | # Track per-request: |
| App breaks when LLM API fails | high | # Defense in depth: |
| Not validating facts from LLM responses | critical | # For factual claims: |
| Making LLM calls in synchronous request handlers | high | # Async patterns: |