writing-skills

skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md · 16.3 KB · View on GitHub at 22f0b46

Files in this skill

File	What it does	Flags
references/anthropic-best-practices.md	Anthropic’s guide to skill authoring, kept as a reference.
references/discovery.md
references/flowcharts.md
references/bulletproofing.md
references/testing-skills-with-subagents.md		1
references/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md	A worked test campaign that compares versions of CLAUDE.md wording to see which ones make agents find and use skills under pressure. testing-skills-with-subagents.md points to it as the complete worked example.	2
references/graphviz-conventions.dot	A Graphviz graph that is itself the style guide for flowcharts in skills: diamonds for questions, boxes for actions, plain text for commands, ellipses for states, red octagons for warnings, and double circles for start and end.
references/persuasion-principles.md
render-graphs.js	Node script that takes a skill folder, pulls every ```dot block out of its SKILL.md, and renders each one to an SVG with Graphviz’s `dot` command, or with `--combine` renders them all as one diagram (and saves its `.dot` source).

name: writing-skills
description: Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment

Writing Skills

Overview

Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.

Personal skills live in your runtime’s skills directory (~/.claude/skills/ on Claude Code) — see codex-tools.md or gemini-tools.md for the path on those runtimes. Codex, Copilot CLI, and Gemini CLI all also recognize ~/.agents/skills/ as a cross-runtime alias.

You write test cases (pressure scenarios with subagents), watch them fail (baseline behavior), write the skill (documentation), watch tests pass (agents comply), and refactor (close loopholes).

Core principle: If you didn’t watch an agent fail without the skill, you don’t know if the skill teaches the right thing.

REQUIRED BACKGROUND: You MUST understand superpowers:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill adapts TDD to documentation.

Official guidance: For Anthropic’s official skill authoring best practices, see references/anthropic-best-practices.md. This document provides additional patterns and guidelines that complement the TDD-focused approach in this skill.

What is a Skill?

A skill is a reference guide for proven techniques, patterns, or tools. Skills help future agents find and apply effective approaches.

Skills are: Reusable techniques, patterns, tools, reference guides

Skills are NOT: Narratives about how you solved a problem once

TDD Mapping for Skills

TDD Concept	Skill Creation
Test case	Pressure scenario with subagent
Production code	Skill document (SKILL.md)
Test fails (RED)	Agent violates rule without skill (baseline)
Test passes (GREEN)	Agent complies with skill present
Refactor	Close loopholes while maintaining compliance
Write test first	Run baseline scenario BEFORE writing skill
Watch it fail	Document exact rationalizations agent uses
Minimal code	Write skill addressing those specific violations
Watch it pass	Verify agent now complies
Refactor cycle	Find new rationalizations → plug → re-verify

The entire skill creation process follows RED-GREEN-REFACTOR.

When to Create a Skill

Create when:

Technique wasn’t intuitively obvious to you
You’d reference this again across projects
Pattern applies broadly (not project-specific)
Others would benefit

Don’t create for:

One-off solutions
Standard practices well-documented elsewhere
Project-specific conventions (put in your instructions file)
Mechanical constraints (if it’s enforceable with regex/validation, automate it—save documentation for judgment calls)

Skill Types

Technique

Concrete method with steps to follow (condition-based-waiting, root-cause-tracing)

Pattern

Way of thinking about problems (flatten-with-flags, test-invariants)

Reference

API docs, syntax guides, tool documentation (office docs)

Directory Structure

skills/
  skill-name/
    SKILL.md              # Main reference (required)
    supporting-file.*     # Only if needed

Flat namespace - all skills in one searchable namespace

Separate files for:

Heavy reference (100+ lines) - API docs, comprehensive syntax
Reusable tools - Scripts, utilities, templates

Keep inline:

Principles and concepts
Code patterns (< 50 lines)
Everything else

Writing SKILL.md

A skill’s description says only when to use it: triggering conditions and symptoms, starting with “Use when…”. It never summarizes the skill’s workflow, because an agent that reads a workflow summary follows it instead of reading the skill.

When you write or change a skill’s frontmatter, name or description, or need to cut its size, read references/discovery.md: the SKILL.md template, description and keyword guidance, naming, token budgets, and cross-referencing other skills.

Flowcharts

When you add or change a flowchart in a skill, read references/flowcharts.md first: when a flowchart earns its place, the graphviz conventions, and how to render one.

Code Examples

One excellent example beats many mediocre ones

Choose most relevant language:

Testing techniques → TypeScript/JavaScript
System debugging → Shell/Python
Data processing → Python

Good example:

Complete and runnable
Well-commented explaining WHY
From real scenario
Shows pattern clearly
Ready to adapt (not generic template)

Don’t:

Implement in 5+ languages
Create fill-in-the-blank templates
Write contrived examples

You’re good at porting - one great example is enough.

File Organization

Self-Contained Skill

defense-in-depth/
  SKILL.md    # Everything inline

When: All content fits, no heavy reference needed

Skill with Reusable Tool

condition-based-waiting/
  SKILL.md    # Overview + patterns
  example.ts  # Working helpers to adapt

When: Tool is reusable code, not just narrative

Skill with Heavy Reference

pptx/
  SKILL.md       # Overview + workflows
  pptxgenjs.md   # 600 lines API reference
  ooxml.md       # 500 lines XML structure
  scripts/       # Executable tools

When: Reference material too large for inline

Invoke bundled scripts through their interpreter in the prose (bash scripts/tool.sh, node scripts/tool.js), never by bare path: some harness plugin packagers strip executable bits, and a bare scripts/tool.sh fails there with Permission denied.

The Iron Law (Same as TDD)

NO SKILL WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

This applies to NEW skills AND EDITS to existing skills.

Write skill before testing? Delete it. Start over. Edit skill without testing? Same violation.

No exceptions:

Not for “simple additions”
Not for “just adding a section”
Not for “documentation updates”
Don’t keep untested changes as “reference”
Don’t “adapt” while running tests
Delete means delete

REQUIRED BACKGROUND: The superpowers:test-driven-development skill explains why this matters. Same principles apply to documentation.

Testing All Skill Types

Different skill types need different test approaches:

Discipline-Enforcing Skills (rules/requirements)

Examples: TDD, verification-before-completion, designing-before-coding

Test with:

Academic questions: Do they understand the rules?
Pressure scenarios: Do they comply under stress?
Multiple pressures combined: time + sunk cost + exhaustion
Identify rationalizations and add explicit counters

Success criteria: Agent follows rule under maximum pressure

Technique Skills (how-to guides)

Examples: condition-based-waiting, root-cause-tracing, defensive-programming

Test with:

Application scenarios: Can they apply the technique correctly?
Variation scenarios: Do they handle edge cases?
Missing information tests: Do instructions have gaps?

Success criteria: Agent successfully applies technique to new scenario

Pattern Skills (mental models)

Examples: reducing-complexity, information-hiding concepts

Test with:

Recognition scenarios: Do they recognize when pattern applies?
Application scenarios: Can they use the mental model?
Counter-examples: Do they know when NOT to apply?

Success criteria: Agent correctly identifies when/how to apply pattern

Reference Skills (documentation/APIs)

Examples: API documentation, command references, library guides

Test with:

Retrieval scenarios: Can they find the right information?
Application scenarios: Can they use what they found correctly?
Gap testing: Are common use cases covered?

Success criteria: Agent finds and correctly applies reference information

Common Rationalizations for Skipping Testing

Excuse	Reality
“Skill is obviously clear”	Clear to you ≠ clear to other agents. Test it.
“It’s just a reference”	References can have gaps, unclear sections. Test retrieval.
“Testing is overkill”	Untested skills have issues. Always. 15 min testing saves hours.
“I’ll test if problems emerge”	Problems = agents can’t use skill. Test BEFORE deploying.
“Too tedious to test”	Testing is less tedious than debugging bad skill in production.
“I’m confident it’s good”	Overconfidence guarantees issues. Test anyway.
“Academic review is enough”	Reading ≠ using. Test application scenarios.
“No time to test”	Deploying untested skill wastes more time fixing it later.

All of these mean: Test before deploying. No exceptions.

Match the Form to the Failure

Before writing guidance, classify the baseline failure. The form that bulletproofs one failure type measurably backfires on another.

Baseline failure	Right form	Wrong form
Skips/violates a rule under pressure (knows better, does it anyway)	Prohibition + rationalization table + red flags (see references/bulletproofing.md)	Soft guidance (“prefer…”, “consider…”)
Complies, but output has the wrong shape (bloated prompt, buried verdict, restated spec)	Positive recipe or contract: state what the output IS — its parts, in order	Prohibition list (“don’t restate”, “never narrate”)
Omits a required element from something they already produce	Structural: REQUIRED field or slot in the template they fill in	Prose reminders near the template
Behavior should depend on a condition	Conditional keyed to an observable predicate (“if the brief exists, reference it”)	Unconditional rule + exemption clauses

Why prohibitions backfire on shaping problems: under a competing incentive (“make the prompt self-contained”), agents negotiate with “don’t X”. In head-to-head wording tests on dispatch-prompt guidance, the prohibition arm produced clearly more of the unwanted content than the recipe arm (fully separated distributions), and trended worse than even the no-guidance control — micro-test your own case rather than assuming, but never reach for the prohibition by default. A recipe leaves nothing to negotiate: the output matches the stated shape or it doesn’t.

Rules for whichever form you pick:

No nuance clauses. “Don’t X unless it matters” reopens the negotiation — appending a single nuance clause to a winning recipe degraded it from consistent to noisy in the same wording tests. Express a real exception as its own conditional on an observable predicate.
Exemption clauses don’t scope. “This limit doesn’t apply to code blocks” still suppresses code blocks. If part of the output must be exempt, restructure so the rule can’t reach it.

Bulletproofing Against Rationalization

When the baseline failure is a discipline failure, read references/bulletproofing.md before you write the guidance: closing loopholes, the spirit-vs-letter line, the rationalization table, and the red-flags list.

RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for Skills

Follow the TDD cycle:

RED: Write Failing Test (Baseline)

Run pressure scenario with subagent WITHOUT the skill. Document exact behavior:

What choices did they make?
What rationalizations did they use (verbatim)?
Which pressures triggered violations?

This is “watch the test fail” - you must see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.

GREEN: Write Minimal Skill

Write skill that addresses those specific rationalizations. Don’t add extra content for hypothetical cases.

Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.

REFACTOR: Close Loopholes

Agent found new rationalization? Add explicit counter. Re-test until bulletproof.

Micro-Test Wording Before Full Scenarios

Full pressure-scenario runs are the final gate, but they are slow and expensive per iteration. Verify the wording itself first with micro-tests:

One fresh-context sample per call — a raw API call, or a single-shot subagent if you don’t have API access. System prompt = the realistic context the guidance will live in (the full skill or prompt template, not the guidance in isolation); user message = a task that tempts the failure.
Always include a no-guidance control. If the control doesn’t exhibit the failure, there is nothing to fix — stop, don’t author the guidance.
5+ reps per variant. Single samples lie.
Manually read every flagged match. Score programmatically if you like, but template echoes and quoted counter-examples masquerade as hits; automated counts alone overstate both failure and success.
Variance is a metric. When guidance lands, reps converge on the same shape. Five different interpretations across five reps means the wording isn’t binding — tighten the form before adding words.

Micro-tests verify wording; they do not replace pressure scenarios for discipline skills.

Testing methodology: See references/testing-skills-with-subagents.md for the complete testing methodology:

How to write pressure scenarios
Pressure types (time, sunk cost, authority, exhaustion)
Plugging holes systematically
Meta-testing techniques

Anti-Patterns

❌ Narrative Example

“In session 2025-10-03, we found empty projectDir caused…” Why bad: Too specific, not reusable

❌ Multi-Language Dilution

example-js.js, example-py.py, example-go.go Why bad: Mediocre quality, maintenance burden

❌ Code in Flowcharts

step1 [label="import fs"];
step2 [label="read file"];

Why bad: Can’t copy-paste, hard to read

❌ Generic Labels

helper1, helper2, step3, pattern4 Why bad: Labels should have semantic meaning

STOP: Before Moving to Next Skill

After writing ANY skill, you MUST STOP and complete the deployment process.

Do NOT:

Create multiple skills in batch without testing each
Move to next skill before current one is verified
Skip testing because “batching is more efficient”

The deployment checklist below is MANDATORY for EACH skill.

Deploying untested skills = deploying untested code. It’s a violation of quality standards.

Skill Creation Checklist (TDD Adapted)

IMPORTANT: Create a todo for EACH checklist item below.

RED Phase - Write Failing Test:

Create pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures for discipline skills)
Run scenarios WITHOUT skill - document baseline behavior verbatim
Identify patterns in rationalizations/failures

GREEN Phase - Write Minimal Skill:

REFACTOR Phase - Close Loopholes:

Identify NEW rationalizations from testing
Add explicit counters (if discipline skill)
Build rationalization table from all test iterations
Create red flags list
Re-test until bulletproof

Quality Checks:

Small flowchart only if decision non-obvious
Quick reference table
Common mistakes section
No narrative storytelling
Supporting files only for tools or heavy reference

Deployment:

Commit skill to git and push to your fork (if configured)
Consider contributing back via PR (if broadly useful)

Discovery Workflow

How future agents find your skill:

Encounters problem (“tests are flaky”)
Searches skills (greps descriptions, browses categories)
Finds SKILL (description matches)
Scans overview (is this relevant?)
Reads patterns (quick reference table)
Loads example (only when implementing)

Optimize for this flow - put searchable terms early and often.

Original Markdown source

---
name: writing-skills
description: Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
---

# Writing Skills

## Overview

**Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.**

**Personal skills live in your runtime's skills directory** (`~/.claude/skills/` on Claude Code) — see [codex-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md) or [gemini-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/gemini-tools.md) for the path on those runtimes. Codex, Copilot CLI, and Gemini CLI all also recognize `~/.agents/skills/` as a cross-runtime alias.

You write test cases (pressure scenarios with subagents), watch them fail (baseline behavior), write the skill (documentation), watch tests pass (agents comply), and refactor (close loopholes).

**Core principle:** If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill teaches the right thing.

**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand superpowers:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill adapts TDD to documentation.

**Official guidance:** For Anthropic's official skill authoring best practices, see references/anthropic-best-practices.md. This document provides additional patterns and guidelines that complement the TDD-focused approach in this skill.

## What is a Skill?

A **skill** is a reference guide for proven techniques, patterns, or tools. Skills help future agents find and apply effective approaches.

**Skills are:** Reusable techniques, patterns, tools, reference guides

**Skills are NOT:** Narratives about how you solved a problem once

## TDD Mapping for Skills

| TDD Concept | Skill Creation |
|-------------|----------------|
| **Test case** | Pressure scenario with subagent |
| **Production code** | Skill document (SKILL.md) |
| **Test fails (RED)** | Agent violates rule without skill (baseline) |
| **Test passes (GREEN)** | Agent complies with skill present |
| **Refactor** | Close loopholes while maintaining compliance |
| **Write test first** | Run baseline scenario BEFORE writing skill |
| **Watch it fail** | Document exact rationalizations agent uses |
| **Minimal code** | Write skill addressing those specific violations |
| **Watch it pass** | Verify agent now complies |
| **Refactor cycle** | Find new rationalizations → plug → re-verify |

The entire skill creation process follows RED-GREEN-REFACTOR.

## When to Create a Skill

**Create when:**
- Technique wasn't intuitively obvious to you
- You'd reference this again across projects
- Pattern applies broadly (not project-specific)
- Others would benefit

**Don't create for:**
- One-off solutions
- Standard practices well-documented elsewhere
- Project-specific conventions (put in your instructions file)
- Mechanical constraints (if it's enforceable with regex/validation, automate it—save documentation for judgment calls)

## Skill Types

### Technique
Concrete method with steps to follow (condition-based-waiting, root-cause-tracing)

### Pattern
Way of thinking about problems (flatten-with-flags, test-invariants)

### Reference
API docs, syntax guides, tool documentation (office docs)

## Directory Structure

```
skills/
  skill-name/
    SKILL.md              # Main reference (required)
    supporting-file.*     # Only if needed
```

**Flat namespace** - all skills in one searchable namespace

**Separate files for:**
1. **Heavy reference** (100+ lines) - API docs, comprehensive syntax
2. **Reusable tools** - Scripts, utilities, templates

**Keep inline:**
- Principles and concepts
- Code patterns (< 50 lines)
- Everything else

## Writing SKILL.md

A skill's `description` says only when to use it: triggering conditions and
symptoms, starting with "Use when...". It never summarizes the skill's
workflow, because an agent that reads a workflow summary follows it instead
of reading the skill.

When you write or change a skill's frontmatter, name or description, or
need to cut its size, read [references/discovery.md](references/discovery.md):
the SKILL.md template, description and keyword guidance, naming, token
budgets, and cross-referencing other skills.

## Flowcharts

When you add or change a flowchart in a skill, read
[references/flowcharts.md](references/flowcharts.md) first: when a flowchart
earns its place, the graphviz conventions, and how to render one.

## Code Examples

**One excellent example beats many mediocre ones**

Choose most relevant language:
- Testing techniques → TypeScript/JavaScript
- System debugging → Shell/Python
- Data processing → Python

**Good example:**
- Complete and runnable
- Well-commented explaining WHY
- From real scenario
- Shows pattern clearly
- Ready to adapt (not generic template)

**Don't:**
- Implement in 5+ languages
- Create fill-in-the-blank templates
- Write contrived examples

You're good at porting - one great example is enough.

## File Organization

### Self-Contained Skill
```
defense-in-depth/
  SKILL.md    # Everything inline
```
When: All content fits, no heavy reference needed

### Skill with Reusable Tool
```
condition-based-waiting/
  SKILL.md    # Overview + patterns
  example.ts  # Working helpers to adapt
```
When: Tool is reusable code, not just narrative

### Skill with Heavy Reference
```
pptx/
  SKILL.md       # Overview + workflows
  pptxgenjs.md   # 600 lines API reference
  ooxml.md       # 500 lines XML structure
  scripts/       # Executable tools
```
When: Reference material too large for inline

Invoke bundled scripts through their interpreter in the prose (`bash scripts/tool.sh`, `node scripts/tool.js`), never by bare path: some harness plugin packagers strip executable bits, and a bare `scripts/tool.sh` fails there with `Permission denied`.

## The Iron Law (Same as TDD)

```
NO SKILL WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
```

This applies to NEW skills AND EDITS to existing skills.

Write skill before testing? Delete it. Start over.
Edit skill without testing? Same violation.

**No exceptions:**
- Not for "simple additions"
- Not for "just adding a section"
- Not for "documentation updates"
- Don't keep untested changes as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" while running tests
- Delete means delete

**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** The superpowers:test-driven-development skill explains why this matters. Same principles apply to documentation.

## Testing All Skill Types

Different skill types need different test approaches:

### Discipline-Enforcing Skills (rules/requirements)

**Examples:** TDD, verification-before-completion, designing-before-coding

**Test with:**
- Academic questions: Do they understand the rules?
- Pressure scenarios: Do they comply under stress?
- Multiple pressures combined: time + sunk cost + exhaustion
- Identify rationalizations and add explicit counters

**Success criteria:** Agent follows rule under maximum pressure

### Technique Skills (how-to guides)

**Examples:** condition-based-waiting, root-cause-tracing, defensive-programming

**Test with:**
- Application scenarios: Can they apply the technique correctly?
- Variation scenarios: Do they handle edge cases?
- Missing information tests: Do instructions have gaps?

**Success criteria:** Agent successfully applies technique to new scenario

### Pattern Skills (mental models)

**Examples:** reducing-complexity, information-hiding concepts

**Test with:**
- Recognition scenarios: Do they recognize when pattern applies?
- Application scenarios: Can they use the mental model?
- Counter-examples: Do they know when NOT to apply?

**Success criteria:** Agent correctly identifies when/how to apply pattern

### Reference Skills (documentation/APIs)

**Examples:** API documentation, command references, library guides

**Test with:**
- Retrieval scenarios: Can they find the right information?
- Application scenarios: Can they use what they found correctly?
- Gap testing: Are common use cases covered?

**Success criteria:** Agent finds and correctly applies reference information

## Common Rationalizations for Skipping Testing

| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Skill is obviously clear" | Clear to you ≠ clear to other agents. Test it. |
| "It's just a reference" | References can have gaps, unclear sections. Test retrieval. |
| "Testing is overkill" | Untested skills have issues. Always. 15 min testing saves hours. |
| "I'll test if problems emerge" | Problems = agents can't use skill. Test BEFORE deploying. |
| "Too tedious to test" | Testing is less tedious than debugging bad skill in production. |
| "I'm confident it's good" | Overconfidence guarantees issues. Test anyway. |
| "Academic review is enough" | Reading ≠ using. Test application scenarios. |
| "No time to test" | Deploying untested skill wastes more time fixing it later. |

**All of these mean: Test before deploying. No exceptions.**

## Match the Form to the Failure

Before writing guidance, classify the baseline failure. The form that bulletproofs one failure type measurably backfires on another.

| Baseline failure | Right form | Wrong form |
|---|---|---|
| Skips/violates a rule under pressure (knows better, does it anyway) | Prohibition + rationalization table + red flags (see references/bulletproofing.md) | Soft guidance ("prefer...", "consider...") |
| Complies, but output has the wrong shape (bloated prompt, buried verdict, restated spec) | Positive recipe or contract: state what the output IS — its parts, in order | Prohibition list ("don't restate", "never narrate") |
| Omits a required element from something they already produce | Structural: REQUIRED field or slot in the template they fill in | Prose reminders near the template |
| Behavior should depend on a condition | Conditional keyed to an observable predicate ("if the brief exists, reference it") | Unconditional rule + exemption clauses |

**Why prohibitions backfire on shaping problems:** under a competing incentive ("make the prompt self-contained"), agents negotiate with "don't X". In head-to-head wording tests on dispatch-prompt guidance, the prohibition arm produced clearly more of the unwanted content than the recipe arm (fully separated distributions), and trended worse than even the no-guidance control — micro-test your own case rather than assuming, but never reach for the prohibition by default. A recipe leaves nothing to negotiate: the output matches the stated shape or it doesn't.

**Rules for whichever form you pick:**
- **No nuance clauses.** "Don't X unless it matters" reopens the negotiation — appending a single nuance clause to a winning recipe degraded it from consistent to noisy in the same wording tests. Express a real exception as its own conditional on an observable predicate.
- **Exemption clauses don't scope.** "This limit doesn't apply to code blocks" still suppresses code blocks. If part of the output must be exempt, restructure so the rule can't reach it.

## Bulletproofing Against Rationalization

When the baseline failure is a discipline failure, read
[references/bulletproofing.md](references/bulletproofing.md) before you write
the guidance: closing loopholes, the spirit-vs-letter line, the
rationalization table, and the red-flags list.

## RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for Skills

Follow the TDD cycle:

### RED: Write Failing Test (Baseline)

Run pressure scenario with subagent WITHOUT the skill. Document exact behavior:
- What choices did they make?
- What rationalizations did they use (verbatim)?
- Which pressures triggered violations?

This is "watch the test fail" - you must see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.

### GREEN: Write Minimal Skill

Write skill that addresses those specific rationalizations. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases.

Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.

### REFACTOR: Close Loopholes

Agent found new rationalization? Add explicit counter. Re-test until bulletproof.

### Micro-Test Wording Before Full Scenarios

Full pressure-scenario runs are the final gate, but they are slow and expensive per iteration. Verify the wording itself first with micro-tests:

1. **One fresh-context sample per call** — a raw API call, or a single-shot subagent if you don't have API access. System prompt = the realistic context the guidance will live in (the full skill or prompt template, not the guidance in isolation); user message = a task that tempts the failure.
2. **Always include a no-guidance control.** If the control doesn't exhibit the failure, there is nothing to fix — stop, don't author the guidance.
3. **5+ reps per variant.** Single samples lie.
4. **Manually read every flagged match.** Score programmatically if you like, but template echoes and quoted counter-examples masquerade as hits; automated counts alone overstate both failure and success.
5. **Variance is a metric.** When guidance lands, reps converge on the same shape. Five different interpretations across five reps means the wording isn't binding — tighten the form before adding words.

Micro-tests verify wording; they do not replace pressure scenarios for discipline skills.

**Testing methodology:** See [references/testing-skills-with-subagents.md](references/testing-skills-with-subagents.md) for the complete testing methodology:
- How to write pressure scenarios
- Pressure types (time, sunk cost, authority, exhaustion)
- Plugging holes systematically
- Meta-testing techniques

## Anti-Patterns

### ❌ Narrative Example
"In session 2025-10-03, we found empty projectDir caused..."
**Why bad:** Too specific, not reusable

### ❌ Multi-Language Dilution
example-js.js, example-py.py, example-go.go
**Why bad:** Mediocre quality, maintenance burden

### ❌ Code in Flowcharts
```dot
step1 [label="import fs"];
step2 [label="read file"];
```
**Why bad:** Can't copy-paste, hard to read

### ❌ Generic Labels
helper1, helper2, step3, pattern4
**Why bad:** Labels should have semantic meaning

## STOP: Before Moving to Next Skill

**After writing ANY skill, you MUST STOP and complete the deployment process.**

**Do NOT:**
- Create multiple skills in batch without testing each
- Move to next skill before current one is verified
- Skip testing because "batching is more efficient"

**The deployment checklist below is MANDATORY for EACH skill.**

Deploying untested skills = deploying untested code. It's a violation of quality standards.

## Skill Creation Checklist (TDD Adapted)

**IMPORTANT: Create a todo for EACH checklist item below.**

**RED Phase - Write Failing Test:**
- [ ] Create pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures for discipline skills)
- [ ] Run scenarios WITHOUT skill - document baseline behavior verbatim
- [ ] Identify patterns in rationalizations/failures

**GREEN Phase - Write Minimal Skill:**
- [ ] Name uses only letters, numbers, hyphens (no parentheses/special chars)
- [ ] YAML frontmatter with required `name` and `description` fields (max 1024 chars; see [spec](https://agentskills.io/specification))
- [ ] Description starts with "Use when..." and includes specific triggers/symptoms
- [ ] Description written in third person
- [ ] Keywords throughout for search (errors, symptoms, tools)
- [ ] Clear overview with core principle
- [ ] Address specific baseline failures identified in RED
- [ ] Guidance form matches the failure type (see Match the Form to the Failure)
- [ ] For behavior-shaping guidance: wording micro-tested against a no-guidance control (5+ reps, every flagged match read manually) — N/A for pure reference skills
- [ ] Code inline OR link to separate file
- [ ] One excellent example (not multi-language)
- [ ] Run scenarios WITH skill - verify agents now comply

**REFACTOR Phase - Close Loopholes:**
- [ ] Identify NEW rationalizations from testing
- [ ] Add explicit counters (if discipline skill)
- [ ] Build rationalization table from all test iterations
- [ ] Create red flags list
- [ ] Re-test until bulletproof

**Quality Checks:**
- [ ] Small flowchart only if decision non-obvious
- [ ] Quick reference table
- [ ] Common mistakes section
- [ ] No narrative storytelling
- [ ] Supporting files only for tools or heavy reference

**Deployment:**
- [ ] Commit skill to git and push to your fork (if configured)
- [ ] Consider contributing back via PR (if broadly useful)

## Discovery Workflow

How future agents find your skill:

1. **Encounters problem** ("tests are flaky")
2. **Searches skills** (greps descriptions, browses categories)
3. **Finds SKILL** (description matches)
4. **Scans overview** (is this relevant?)
5. **Reads patterns** (quick reference table)
6. **Loads example** (only when implementing)

**Optimize for this flow** - put searchable terms early and often.