skill-authoring
Skill1 starsChanged 15 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Author or revise a repository-local agent skill after explicit approval, preserving its trigger, boundaries, portability, and validation contract. Use when creating, extending, restructuring, or applying an approved skill change.
89 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- neuroborus/agent-runnertheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- juninmd/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- TrueImmortal82/open-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- patrykmurzyn/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- frnkgns/Overgeared-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- notivn/AIEVv2their own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use cloud-api-recipe-authoring, codebuddy-ide-mcp-upgrade and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
TencentCloudBaseSkillcloud-api-recipe-authoring
Author or revise a cloud-api-operations recipe (config/source/skills/cloud-api-operations/references/recipes/). Encodes why the long tail of control-plane capabilities is deliberately NOT wrapped as MCP/CLI tools, the API-first admission test for whether a capability deserves a recipe, the negative and positive lists, the fixed recipe structure, the writing rules distilled from writing-for-agents, the user-facing copy red lines, and the product regeneration/verification pipeline. Also routes contributors (and their agents) to the contribution flow and the pre-PR self-test protocol in references/contributing.md. Use when adding a recipe, judging whether a scenario belongs in the recipe set, updating the recipes index, re-checking existing recipes against the admission test, or onboarding someone who wants to submit one.
Also in 3 projects that use this
TencentCloudBaseSkillcodebuddy-ide-mcp-upgrade
升级 CodeBuddy IDE(genie 扩展)内置的 CloudBase MCP,以及 MCP 发版时同步 IDE 侧白名单。当用户提到「更新 IDE 里的 MCP」「内置 MCP 版本太老」「IDE 集成的 CloudBase 功能不足」「改工具白名单 toolWhiteList」「把新 bundle 打进 CodeBuddy」「白名单漂移」「MCP 发版要同步什么」时使用。覆盖:解包定位内置 bundle 与内嵌配置、重新构建 mcp bundle、生成新的工具白名单与系统提示词、安全注入 IDE 并备份、用 MCP 协议验证工具清单、人工端到端验收、一键回滚。
Also in 3 projects that use this
DIL8654Skillapi-contract-review
Review ASP.NET Core Web API contracts for HTTP semantics, versioning, backward compatibility, and response consistency. Use when the user asks to review an API, check endpoints, validate REST behavior, or before releasing contract changes.
Also in 5 projects that use this
zaxbysauceSkillpr-review-fix
Codex adapter for addressing pull request review feedback in opencode-swarm. Use when the user asks to fix PR review comments, requested changes, reviewer findings, CI-review notes, or a pasted review summary with low false-positive tolerance.
Also in 3 projects that use this
albertdobmeyerSkillgit-workflows
Advanced git operations beyond add/commit/push. Use when rebasing, bisecting bugs, using worktrees for parallel development, recovering with reflog, managing subtrees/submodules, resolving merge conflicts, cherry-picking across branches, or working with monorepos.
Also in 3 projects that use this
rogue-dev-studioSkillfrontend-engineering
Expert frontend application engineering: accessible UI structure, state and data-fetching discipline, form/validation UX, responsive layouts, performance budgets, and integration with API contracts. Use when building or refining SPA/web screens, design-system consumption, client-side routing, or fixing UI reliability (loading, empty, and error states).
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +6 more from TencentCloudBase
Other versions89 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 89
- nyldn/claude-octopus★ 4.4ksame name
- endurain-project/endurain★ 2.4ksame name
- joaovitoriasilva/endurain★ 2.4ksame name
- theopenco/llmgateway★ 1.7ksame name
- TencentCloudBase/CloudBase-AI-ToolKit★ 1.2ksame name
- TencentCloudBase/CloudBase-MCP★ 1.2ksame name
- TencentCloudBase/CloudBase-AI-Toolkit★ 1.2ksame name
- pockebot/openpocket★ 847same name
- QuixiAI/agi-memory★ 623same name
- QuixiAI/Hexis★ 623same name
79 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adversarial-pr-reviewSkill
- ai-slop-detectorSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- codebase-orientationSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- dependency-upgradeSkill
- documentation-reviewSkill
- frontend-quality-reviewSkill
- git-github-workflowSkill
- harness-adaptationSkill
- implementation-planningSkill
- parallel-multi-agentSkill
- quality-hardeningSkill
- reduce-code-sizeSkill
- repository-guidance-authoringSkill
- requirements-and-designSkill
- review-feedback-resolutionSkill
- rules-and-skills-auditSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- skill-discoverySkill
- skill-optimizerSkill
- skill-reviewerSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- threat-modelingSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
23 rules. 0 are common, 19 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 80 edited versions we read keep these.
19
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 11
Use this skill to implement an approved change to a project-local skill.
- Distinctive: line 24
Do not turn a domain skill into a generic coding procedure, an unrelated harness adapter, or a second copy of canonical project policy.
- Distinctive: line 30
Write down the smallest contract:
- Distinctive: line 35
Side effects: every file or external system that may change.
- Distinctive: line 38
If the trigger, owner, and completion contract are not distinct from an existing skill, extend that skill instead of inventing another one.
- Distinctive: line 50
Structured procedures: when a preferred sequence measurably reduces mistakes (order-dependent builds, multi-step migrations, …
- Distinctive: line 69
Unnecessary ceremony: do not convert judgment-heavy work (design, triage, review) into checklists that pretend a hard call is a procedure.
- Distinctive: line 71
Underspecified danger: do not leave destructive, security-sensitive, or irreversible operations as vague advice.
- Distinctive: line 77
Read the repository's applicable rules, the current skill, its index entry, and adjacent skills.
- Very specific: line 79
Keep the canonical file at skills/<name>/SKILL.md.
- Distinctive: line 93
Avoid generic filler phrases ("Helps with tasks", "Manages files", "Improves code") that match indiscriminately.
- Distinctive: line 96
When moving low-frequency detail or deep specifications into sibling references:
- Very specific: line 97
Place reference files under skills/<name>/references/<topic>.md.
- Very specific: line 98
Keep the common-path decision tree, core contract, and primary checklist in the main SKILL.md (< 500 lines).
- Distinctive: line 100
Ensure each reference is a self-contained deep dive with clear headings, not an orphaned fragment or a duplicate copy of the main workflow.
- Distinctive: line 105
When editing this library, classify the change as portable core, target-local adaptation, or evidence-only material.
- Very specific: line 114
When a skill includes deterministic helper scripts (under scripts/):
- Distinctive: line 115
Write scripts in standard-library Python (or zero-dependency POSIX shell) without undeclared external package requirements.
- Distinctive: line 116
Ensure scripts are completely network-free and execute deterministically.
- Distinctive: line 132
Test routing with one matching request, one neighboring request, and one ambiguous request with a stated tie-breaker.
- Distinctive: line 142
Check every relative link and referenced script or option against the current tree.
- Distinctive: line 144
Check the entrypoint's context cost and move low-frequency detail behind a clear reference link when that preserves discoverability and …
- Distinctive: line 146
Check the diff for whitespace errors, secrets, personal paths, provider assumptions, unintended files, and changes outside the approved …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 80 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Skill Authoring
Use this skill to implement an approved change to a project-local skill. It owns edits and validation; it does not replace a content review or a structural audit.
Keep the roles distinct
| Skill | Owns |
| skill-authoring | Approved skill edits and their validation |
skill-reviewer | Content recommendations; report-only by default |
rules-and-skills-audit | Structure, overlap, routing, and drift findings |
skill-optimizer | Context-cost reduction and its preservation checks |
harness-adaptation | Harness capability profiles and thin projections |
Do not turn a domain skill into a generic coding procedure, an unrelated harness adapter, or a second copy of canonical project policy. A skill whose distinct purpose is harness adaptation follows the neighboring owner above.
Before editing
Write down the smallest contract:
- Trigger: the request that should route here, plus a nearby request that should not.
- Owner and non-goals: what this skill decides and what remains elsewhere.
- Inputs and outputs: files, evidence, edits, report, or handoff required.
- Side effects: every file or external system that may change.
- Stop condition: the exact approval or evidence needed to finish.
If the trigger, owner, and completion contract are not distinct from an existing skill, extend that skill instead of inventing another one. An approval to edit a named skill does not authorize unrelated guidance, index, or runtime changes.
Calibrate instruction rigidity
Match how prescriptive the skill is to the task's risk and variability. Both over- and under-specifying cause failures:
- Flexible heuristics for work with several valid approaches. State the goal and the trade-offs; let the agent judge. Reserve rigid steps for when they earn their cost.
- Structured procedures when a preferred sequence measurably reduces mistakes (order-dependent builds, multi-step migrations, safety-critical setups). Name the required order and the checkpoint that gates the next step.
- Deterministic scripts/tools for fragile, repetitive, or failure-sensitive operations (parsing, checking, transforming). A script removes ambiguity and lowers context cost, but keep it network-free, standard-library, and covered by tests per the companion script hygiene rules.
Connect rigidity to the rest of this skill:
- Context cost: deterministic scripts and tight procedures shrink the reasoning an agent must do; spend that saved budget on the parts that still need judgment.
- Progressive disclosure: push rare, rigid detail into a
references/file so the common path stays flexible; do not pad the entrypoint with ceremony. - Degrees of freedom: prescription level is the main lever for how much freedom the agent keeps. Choose it deliberately, not by habit.
Two failure modes to avoid:
- Unnecessary ceremony: do not convert judgment-heavy work (design, triage, review) into checklists that pretend a hard call is a procedure.
- Underspecified danger: do not leave destructive, security-sensitive, or irreversible operations as vague advice. Pin them to exact commands, guards, and approval gates.
Workflow
- Read the repository's applicable rules, the current skill, its index entry, and adjacent skills. Inspect the current worktree before deciding scope.
- Keep the canonical file at
skills/<name>/SKILL.md. The directory name, frontmattername, and index entry must agree. Draft a short, routeable description followed by purpose, boundaries, decision points, stop conditions, and verification. Make the entrypoint a table of contents for the common path, keep the body below roughly 500 lines, and move rare detail to a directly linked sibling reference. Include trigger phrases and a neighboring-task tie-breaker in the description or body; do not rely on a global name or a long index to route the skill.
Description and routing formula: Draft the YAML frontmatter
descriptionusing this 3-part structure (100–300 characters recommended; must be 40–1024 characters):- Action & Scope: Active verb stating what the skill does (e.g., "Harden correctness through a bounded QA loop...").
- Positive Triggers: Explicit user query phrases and situations where this skill must activate (e.g., "Use when asked to investigate flaky tests, coverage gaps, or edge cases...").
- Negative Boundary: Explicit tie-breaker routing adjacent requests away (e.g., "Do not use for general code review (use code-review) or architectural redesign (use architecture-review)."). Avoid generic filler phrases ("Helps with tasks", "Manages files", "Improves code") that match indiscriminately.
Reference file conventions: When moving low-frequency detail or deep specifications into sibling references:
- Place reference files under
skills/<name>/references/<topic>.md. - Keep the common-path decision tree, core contract, and primary checklist in the main
SKILL.md(< 500 lines). - Link references using relative paths (e.g.,
[topic title]targetingreferences/<topic>.md). - Ensure each reference is a self-contained deep dive with clear headings, not an orphaned fragment or a duplicate copy of the main workflow.
Preserve portability. Use repository-relative examples and generic tool language. Do not add credentials, private data, personal paths, provider catalogs, vendor metadata, or network-dependent behavior. When editing this library, classify the change as portable core, target-local adaptation, or evidence-only material. Keep product names, stack-specific commands, provider/model policy, local paths, and target migrations out of reusable core guidance; preserve those only in clearly labeled evidence or the consumer project. Confirm that the canonical skill remains the sole source of truth and that no harness projection or sibling name collision creates a second authority.
Companion script hygiene: When a skill includes deterministic helper scripts (under
scripts/):- Write scripts in standard-library Python (or zero-dependency POSIX shell) without undeclared external package requirements.
- Ensure scripts are completely network-free and execute deterministically.
- Implement explicit guards against path traversal, symlink escapes, and unauthorized file writes outside the repository root.
- Provide comprehensive automated unit tests in
tests/covering both success paths and error conditions.
Harness-neutral syntax: Canonical
SKILL.mdfiles must use pure, standard Markdown. Never include harness-specific syntax (such as@-mentions, XML tool execution blocks, or proprietary IDE metadata tags) in canonical skill bodies. Harness adaptations belong strictly in thin adapter projections managed byharness-adaptation.- Apply only the explicitly approved files and findings. Do not overwrite unrelated guidance, create duplicate skill bodies, add unrequested harness projections, commit, publish, or send external messages unless separately authorized. Update required metadata when the repository's established validator and discovery contract require it.
Validate before handoff
- Parse the frontmatter and confirm the name, description, and non-empty body.
- Test routing with one matching request, one neighboring request, and one ambiguous request with a stated tie-breaker.
- For a material decision, authority, or stop-condition change, run the smallest
available clean-context behavioral qualification in addition to static routing:
a matching request exercising the changed behavior, a neighboring non-trigger,
an ambiguous tie-breaker, an authority or stop-condition path, and a
missing-evidence or blocked path. Use the same task and artifacts for
candidate-versus-reference comparison. If no suitable harness is available,
report
BEHAVIOR_UNVERIFIED; do not add evaluator infrastructure without separate approval. - Check every relative link and referenced script or option against the current tree. Remove unverifiable claims and unfinished placeholders.
- Check the entrypoint's context cost and move low-frequency detail behind a clear reference link when that preserves discoverability and verification.
- Check the diff for whitespace errors, secrets, personal paths, provider assumptions, unintended files, and changes outside the approved scope.
- Re-read the complete changed skill and report exactly what was validated, skipped, or blocked. Leave release actions to their separately approved flow.
Completion means the approved skill is coherent, portable, routeable, and validated; it does not imply approval for a broader playbook rewrite.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

