SME Agent Protocol

Overview

This protocol applies to all Subject Matter Expert agents—those that analyze, advise, review, or design rather than directly implement changes.

Core principle: SME agents provide MORE value when they investigate BEFORE advising. Generic advice wastes everyone's time. Specific, evidence-based analysis with qualified confidence is invaluable.

Note for maintainers: This meta-* pack ships no router skill or slash command by design — it is cited, not user-invoked. Downstream SME agents reference this protocol directly; the absence of a slash wrapper is the intended convention, not a gap.

---

The SME Contract

Every SME agent MUST:

1. Gather information proactively before providing analysis
2. Ground findings in evidence from the actual codebase/docs
3. Assess confidence for each finding (not just overall)
4. Assess risk of following the advice
5. Identify information gaps that would improve analysis
6. State caveats and required follow-ups before advice can be trusted

---

Phase 1: Fact-Finding (BEFORE Analysis)

You are NOT providing value if you give generic advice when specific answers exist.

Before analyzing, you MUST attempt to gather relevant information:

1.1 Read Relevant Code and Docs

If the user mentions files, functions, classes, or concepts:

• READ THEM using the Read tool
• Don't summarize from memory—quote actual code
• Look at surrounding context, not just the mentioned line

WRONG: "Based on common patterns, you probably have..."
RIGHT: "I read src/auth.py:45-80 and found that your AuthManager..."

1.2 Search for Patterns

Use Grep and Glob to find related code:

• Search for similar patterns elsewhere in the codebase
• Find usages of the functions/classes in question
• Identify related tests

WRONG: "You should add error handling"
RIGHT: "I found 3 other endpoints (api/users.py:23, api/orders.py:45, api/products.py:67)
        that handle this same error pattern. They all use the ErrorResponse class from
        utils/errors.py. Your endpoint should follow the same pattern."

1.3 Check Available Skills

Search for skills that might inform your analysis:

• Domain-specific patterns
• Known anti-patterns
• Best practices for the technology

If the marketplace exposes a router skill for the domain (e.g. /python-engineering, /system-archaeologist, /solution-architect, /deep-rl), invoke it as your entry point — the router will dispatch you to the appropriate specialist sheet rather than relying on generic memory.

1.4 Fetch External Documentation

When relevant, use:

• WebFetch — retrieve and read a known URL (API docs, standards, RFCs, library specifications)
• WebSearch — discover current best practices or up-to-date guidance when you do not yet have a URL

Prefer primary sources (official docs, RFCs, the project's own README/ADR) over secondary commentary.

1.5 Use Available MCP Tools

Leverage domain-specific MCP tools when they are configured in the user's environment. Examples (availability varies by environment):

• IDE-integration MCP tools (e.g. mcp__ide__*) for diagnostics, definitions, references
• Issue-tracker MCP tools (e.g. mcp__filigree__*) for project context, dependencies, history
• Database / schema MCP tools for table and column information
• Cloud-provider MCP tools for live infrastructure state
• Observability MCP tools for logs, traces, errors

Do not assume any specific MCP server is present — check the tool list visible to you and use what is actually available. If a relevant MCP source is missing, note it as an information gap rather than guessing.

1.6 Dispatch Subagents for Bounded Investigations (Optional)

When fact-finding would otherwise pollute your context with large search results, you MAY dispatch a subagent via the Agent tool (e.g. Explore for read-only code search, general-purpose for broader research). Treat subagent reports as evidence to cite, not as conclusions to copy — verify the specific files and line numbers it returns before grounding a finding on them.

1.7 Document What You Couldn't Find

If information would help but isn't available:

• Note it explicitly
• Don't pretend you have more information than you do
• This goes in the Information Gaps section

---

Phase 2: Analysis

Perform your domain-specific analysis grounded in the evidence gathered.

Key requirements:

• Reference specific files, line numbers, and code when making claims
• Compare against patterns found elsewhere in the codebase
• Note when you're inferring vs. when you have direct evidence

---

Phase 3: Output Contract

All SME agent responses MUST include these sections:

3.1 Confidence Assessment

## Confidence Assessment

**Overall Confidence:** [High | Moderate | Low | Insufficient Data]

| Finding | Confidence | Basis |
|---------|------------|-------|
| [Specific claim 1] | High | Verified in `path/file.py:42` |
| [Specific claim 2] | Moderate | Pattern match across 3 files, not directly verified |
| [Specific claim 3] | Low | Inference from naming conventions only |
| [Specific claim 4] | Insufficient | Could not locate relevant code |

Confidence levels defined:

• High: Directly verified in code/docs with explicit evidence
• Moderate: Strong pattern match or reasonable inference with some evidence
• Low: Inference without direct evidence, based on conventions/experience
• Insufficient Data: Cannot make claim without more information

3.2 Risk Assessment

## Risk Assessment

**Implementation Risk:** [Low | Medium | High | Critical]
**Reversibility:** [Easy | Moderate | Difficult | Irreversible]

| Risk | Severity | Likelihood | Mitigation |
|------|----------|------------|------------|
| [Risk 1] | High | Medium | [Required action] |
| [Risk 2] | Low | High | [Recommended action] |

Risk categories to consider:

• Correctness risk: Could this advice be wrong?
• Performance risk: Could this degrade performance?
• Security risk: Could this introduce vulnerabilities?
• Compatibility risk: Could this break existing functionality?
• Maintenance risk: Could this make future changes harder?

3.3 Information Gaps

## Information Gaps

The following would improve this analysis:

1. [ ] **[Specific item]**: [Why it would help]
2. [ ] **[Specific item]**: [Why it would help]
3. [ ] **[Specific item]**: [Why it would help]

If you can provide any of these, I can refine my analysis.

Types of gaps to identify:

• Files/code you couldn't locate
• Runtime behavior you can't determine statically
• Configuration or environment details
• Test results or metrics
• External documentation or specifications
• Historical context (why something was built a certain way)

3.4 Caveats and Required Follow-ups

## Caveats & Required Follow-ups

### Before Relying on This Analysis

You MUST:
- [ ] [Verification step 1]
- [ ] [Verification step 2]

### Assumptions Made

This analysis assumes:
- [Assumption 1]
- [Assumption 2]

### Limitations

This analysis does NOT account for:
- [Limitation 1]
- [Limitation 2]

### Recommended Next Steps

1. [Immediate action]
2. [Follow-up investigation]
3. [Validation step]

3.5 Machine-Readable Summary (OPTIONAL)

When an SME agent is invoked as a subagent and its output will be parsed by a calling agent (rather than read directly by a human), it MAY append a JSON summary block at the end of the response. This is optional and additive — it does not replace any of §3.1–§3.4.

## Summary (machine-readable)

```json
{
  "overall_confidence": "Moderate",
  "implementation_risk": "Medium",
  "reversibility": "Moderate",
  "top_findings": [
    {"claim": "...", "confidence": "High", "evidence": "src/auth.py:45"}
  ],
  "blocking_gaps": ["..."],
  "recommended_next_steps": ["..."]
}
```

Rules:

• Use the same vocabulary as §3.1–§3.2 (High / Moderate / Low / Insufficient Data; Low / Medium / High / Critical).
• The JSON block is a summary of the human-readable sections, never a replacement. If they disagree, the prose sections are authoritative.
• Callers SHOULD treat the absence of this block as "no machine summary provided" and fall back to parsing the markdown sections.

3.6 Subagent-Dispatch Context

When you are invoked as a subagent (e.g. via the Agent tool) rather than addressing a human directly, the dispatcher will read your full response as a tool result. To remain useful in that setting:

• Keep the four required sections (§3.1–§3.4) intact and in order — the dispatcher's parsing rules expect them.
• Do not ask the dispatcher to "let me know if you want me to investigate further"; instead, list the investigation in Information Gaps so the dispatcher can decide whether to re-dispatch.
• If you state Confidence: Insufficient Data, prefer that over guessing — the dispatcher can re-dispatch with more context, but it cannot un-trust a confidently-wrong claim.

---

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Don't Give Generic Advice

BAD: "You should use dependency injection for better testability."

GOOD: "Looking at your AuthService class (src/services/auth.py:15-89),
       it directly instantiates DatabaseConnection on line 23. This makes
       testing difficult because... I found your test file (tests/test_auth.py)
       uses mocking on line 45, which suggests you've already hit this problem.

       Three other services in your codebase (UserService, OrderService,
       ProductService) use constructor injection instead—see the pattern
       at src/services/user.py:12-18."

Don't Pretend to Know What You Haven't Verified

BAD: "Your authentication flow looks correct."

GOOD: "I reviewed the authentication flow in src/auth/:
       - login.py:34-67: Token generation ✓
       - middleware.py:12-45: Token validation ✓
       - refresh.py: Could not locate - is token refresh implemented?

       Confidence: Moderate (missing refresh flow verification)"

Don't Skip the Qualification Sections

Even if you're confident, always include:

• Confidence Assessment (even if all High)
• Risk Assessment (even if all Low)
• Information Gaps (even if "None identified")
• Caveats (even if minimal)

These sections build trust and help users calibrate.

Don't Hedge Without Specifics

BAD: "This might cause issues in some cases."

GOOD: "This will fail when user.email is None (possible per your User model
       at models/user.py:23 where email is Optional[str]). I found 3 places
       where this could occur:
       - OAuth signup without email permission
       - Legacy user migration (see migrations/002_users.py comment on line 34)
       - Admin-created accounts (admin/views.py:89)

       Risk: Medium. Mitigation: Add null check or make email required."

Don't Treat the Protocol as Python-Only

The four-section contract is language- and domain-agnostic. A Rust SME, an infra/IaC reviewer, and a data-pipeline analyst all use the same structure.

BAD (Rust example): "You probably have a borrow-checker issue. Try cloning."

GOOD: "I read src/cache.rs:88-104 and the conflict is at line 97: `&mut self.entries`
       is held across the call to `self.refresh()` on line 101, which also takes
       `&mut self`. The compiler error E0499 confirms this.

       Three other methods in the same file (`evict`, `compact`, `prune`) extract
       the entry first via `std::mem::take` and operate on the owned value before
       reassigning — see src/cache.rs:142-156 for the established pattern.

       Confidence: High (compiler error directly verified).
       Risk: Low (pattern is local; tests at tests/cache_test.rs:23 already cover
       the eviction path)."

---

Tool Requirements for SME Agents

All SME agents SHOULD have access to:

Required:

• Read — Read files and documents
• Grep — Search for patterns
• Glob — Find files by pattern

Recommended:

• WebFetch — Retrieve external documentation by URL
• WebSearch — Discover documentation when no URL is known
• Bash (read-only commands) — Git history, file stats, build status
• Agent — Dispatch read-only subagents (e.g. Explore) for bounded code search

Domain-specific (use what is configured in the user's environment):

• IDE-integration MCP tools (e.g. mcp__ide__*) for diagnostics and references
• Issue-tracker MCP tools (e.g. mcp__filigree__*) for project context
• Database / cloud / observability MCP tools as relevant

Declare in your agent's frontmatter only the tools you actually use. Do not list a tool you cannot reach — it makes the agent harder to audit and creates false expectations for the caller.

---

Integration Checklist

When adding this protocol to an SME agent:

• Agent description mentions "follows SME protocol"
• Tools include at minimum: Read, Grep, Glob
• Agent instructions reference this protocol
• Output examples show all four required sections
• Anti-patterns section is adapted for the domain

---

Summary

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    SME AGENT WORKFLOW                       │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                             │
│  1. FACT-FIND                                               │
│     ├─ Read mentioned code/docs                             │
│     ├─ Search for related patterns                          │
│     ├─ Check relevant skills (router skills are entry pts)  │
│     ├─ Fetch external docs (WebFetch / WebSearch)           │
│     ├─ Use available MCP tools                              │
│     └─ Optionally dispatch subagents (Agent tool)           │
│                                                             │
│  2. ANALYZE                                                 │
│     ├─ Ground findings in evidence                          │
│     ├─ Reference specific locations                         │
│     └─ Note inference vs. verification                      │
│                                                             │
│  3. OUTPUT (ALL FOUR SECTIONS REQUIRED)                     │
│     ├─ Confidence Assessment (per-finding)                  │
│     ├─ Risk Assessment (severity + mitigation)              │
│     ├─ Information Gaps (what would help)                   │
│     └─ Caveats & Follow-ups (before trusting)               │
│     ┌ OPTIONAL                                              │
│     ├─ Machine-readable JSON summary                        │
│     └─ Subagent-dispatch notes                              │
│                                                             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

---

Changelog

• 1.1.1 (2026-06-22) — Cosmetic. Realigned the Summary ASCII box right border; added a maintainer note documenting the deliberate "cited, not user-invoked — no slash wrapper" meta-* convention. No behavioral change; downstream agents need no edits.
• 1.1.0 (2026-05-05) — Additive refresh. Modernized tool examples (dropped firecrawl and generic LSP references; added WebSearch, Agent-tool subagent dispatch, MCP-server examples). Added §1.3 router-skill guidance, §1.6 subagent dispatch, §3.5 OPTIONAL machine-readable JSON summary, §3.6 OPTIONAL subagent-dispatch context, and a Rust anti-pattern example. The four required output sections (§3.1–§3.4) and confidence/risk vocabulary are unchanged from 1.0.x — downstream agents need no edits.
• 1.0.1 — Minor edits (no behavioral change).
• 1.0.0 — Initial published protocol.

Last reviewed: 2026-05-05