---
id: "contrarian-dont-use-skills-for-everything"
type: "contrarian-insight"
source_timestamps: ["17:25:00", "17:45:00"]
tags: ["architecture"]
related: ["concept-hard-wiring-vs-skills", "claim-use-scripts-for-deterministic", "action-use-scripts-for-hardwiring"]
challenges: "The tendency for teams new to AI to try and force the LLM to handle rigid, procedural logic via plain-English prompting, rather than simply writing a script and giving the agent access to it."
sources: ["s43-file-format-agreement"]
sourceVaultSlug: "s43-file-format-agreement"
originDay: 43
---
# Don't use AI skills for deterministic tasks

## Contrarian Position

Don't reach for an LLM skill for deterministic tasks. Use a **script**.

## What It Challenges

The tendency among teams new to AI to force the LLM to handle rigid, procedural logic via plain-English prompting, rather than simply writing a script and giving the agent access to it.

## Speaker's Argument

Skills are probabilistic — agents will generally follow them but won't guarantee 100% fidelity. For mission-critical, rigid workflows, this is unacceptable. See [[claim-use-scripts-for-deterministic]] and [[concept-hard-wiring-vs-skills]].

## Steelman of the Conventional View

*"If we already have an LLM in the loop, why introduce a second toolchain?"* — minimizing surface area is a real virtue.

## Reconciliation

The agent itself is general-purpose; deterministic scripts become **tools** the agent calls, not a separate toolchain. You get the simplicity of one orchestrator (the LLM agent) plus the reliability of deterministic scripts where it matters.