Free SKILL.md scraped from GitHub. Clone the repo or copy the file directly into your Claude Code skills directory.
npx versuz@latest install m2ai-st-metro-skill-forge-skills-middleware-trap-detectorgit clone https://github.com/m2ai-st-metro/skill-forge.gitcp skill-forge/SKILL.MD ~/.claude/skills/m2ai-st-metro-skill-forge-skills-middleware-trap-detector/SKILL.md--- name: middleware-trap-detector description: Diagnose whether an agent deployment is falling into the "middleware trap" — wrapping legacy systems without redesign, mirroring manual bottlenecks at machine speed, or pass-through pipelines with no validation. Use when the user says "middleware trap", "deployment health", "is this deployment safe", "wrapping legacy", "automated bottleneck", or wants a pre-deployment risk scan of an existing agent integration. --- # Middleware Trap Detector Lightweight diagnostic that takes a description, codebase, or config of an existing agent deployment and flags whether it exhibits the **middleware trap**: an agent layered on top of broken foundations that scales every dysfunction at machine speed. This is the deployment-pattern equivalent of `compensating-complexity-auditor` (which audits prompts) and `bitter-lesson-scorecard` (which audits architecture). It audits the *integration shape*. ## When to Use - A team is about to ship an agent that integrates with an existing legacy system - An agent has been live for ~30 days and someone wants a "is this still healthy?" check - A consulting engagement where you need to triage an existing OpenClaw / Claude Code deployment - Before approving an agent's promotion from dev to production ## Inputs - Either: a free-text description of the deployment (system, agent role, data flow, approval gates) - Or: a path to a codebase + a brief description of what the agent does - Or: a `.mcp.json`, hooks config, or pipeline DAG file ## Trap Patterns to Detect Score each pattern as PRESENT / ABSENT / UNKNOWN. Each PRESENT contributes to the overall risk score. ### Trap 1 — Legacy Wrapping Without Redesign - Agent calls into a legacy API without any data model translation - Agent's outputs are formatted to match the legacy system's quirks rather than redesigning the workflow - Tell-tale: agent prompts contain phrases like "format this exactly like the existing report" ### Trap 2 — Pass-Through With No Validation - Data flows agent → downstream system with no schema check, sanity check, or human gate - No try/except around external calls; no retry policy; no dead-letter queue - Tell-tale: pipeline has no validation step between extraction and write ### Trap 3 — Bottleneck Inversion - Agent's production rate is N× higher than human review capacity - No batching, no review queue, no auto-approve threshold tuned to capacity - Tell-tale: PR/email/record output rate >10× the team's historical baseline with the same review headcount ### Trap 4 — Authority Vacuum - Agent takes actions that no role explicitly owns approval for - Permissions inherited from a sandbox config; nobody signed off on production scope - Tell-tale: when asked "who approves X?", the answer is "the agent does it automatically" ### Trap 5 — Dirty Data Propagation - Agent reads from a known-dirty source (inconsistent formats, stale references) without normalization - Agent's writes accumulate in places nobody monitors for quality - Tell-tale: data quality issues exist but were considered "out of scope" for the agent ### Trap 6 — SaaS Replacement Without SLAs - Agent replaces a paid SaaS tool but doesn't replicate its SLAs (backups, compliance, support) - Tell-tale: cost savings narrative exists; resilience narrative does not ## Phases ### Phase 1 — Gather context Ask up to 5 targeted questions if inputs are sparse. Example: "What system does the agent write to?", "What's the human review rate?", "Where does the input data come from?". ### Phase 2 — Score each trap PRESENT (2 pts), LIKELY (1 pt), ABSENT (0 pts), UNKNOWN (0 pts but flagged). ### Phase 3 — Produce the risk report ``` MIDDLEWARE TRAP REPORT ====================== Deployment: <name> Overall risk: <LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | CRITICAL> Score: X / 12 TRAPS DETECTED 1. [PRESENT] Bottleneck Inversion — agent produces 50 PRs/day, team reviews 5/day 2. [LIKELY] Authority Vacuum — no documented approver for external API writes 3. [ABSENT] Legacy Wrapping ... UNKNOWNS (re-run after answering) - Data source quality: not assessed REMEDIATION (ranked by ROI) 1. Add review-capacity gate before scaling output 2. Document approval owner for external writes 3. ... ``` ## Verification - Re-score after applying remediations; score should drop by at least the points from fixed traps - For agents that fail this check, re-run after 30 days of operation to confirm fixes held - Cross-check with `agent-blast-radius` to validate that the production rate claims match reality ## Source Attribution Concept extracted from Nate's Newsletter, 2026-04-05: *"Executive Briefing: OpenClaw Deployments Are Spreading Through Your Org Here's What Nobody Audited"* — specifically the "middleware trap" framing and the four named failure modes (legacy wrapping, bottleneck inversion, authority vacuum, dirty data propagation).