instruction-creator
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create instructions that pass instruction-review's five gates (plus Gate 6 for always-on) by construction — intent capture, prior-art scan, applyTo calibration, draft against gates, dogfood self-review. Use when authoring a new instruction, refactoring an existing one, or promoting a Mall instruction into the heir's brain.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- agent-creatorSkill
- agent-reviewSkill
- ai-memory-setupSkill
- alex-banner-generationSkill
- anti-hallucinationSkill
- brain-auditSkill
- browser-toolsSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- creative-writingSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- deep-reviewSkill
- doc-hygieneSkill
- docx-to-mdSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- greeting-checkinSkill
- html-to-mdSkill
- humanizerSkill
- instruction-reviewSkill
- lint-clean-markdownSkill
- markdown-mermaidSkill
- markdown-sanitization-chainSkill
- md-to-emlSkill
- md-to-htmlSkill
- md-to-txtSkill
- md-to-wordSkill
- meditationSkill
- planSkill
- problem-framing-auditSkill
- prompt-creatorSkill
- prompt-reviewSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- skill-reviewSkill
- spikeSkill
- status-reportingSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 40
If the rule is a *procedure* (multi-step operation) rather than a condition-action pair, stop — author a skill, not an instruction.
- Very specific: line 76
If applyTo: "", the body must include an explicit *always-on rationale* section (Gate 6 requirement).
- Very specific: line 106
Before committing, run instruction-review's five gates (plus Gate 6 for always-on).
- Distinctive: line 130
No new instructions authored via this guide in 90 days (decorative, not load-bearing — sunset)
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
<!-- intentional divergence from Supervisor: Edition replaces Supervisor-specific routing ("Forking a Supervisor instruction for Edition", "into Supervisor or Edition") with heir-portable phrasing ("into the heir's brain"). Same workflow. Audited 2026-05-31. -->Instruction Creator
Author instructions that pass instruction-review's five gates by construction (plus Gate 6 for always-on instructions). The gates are the quality bar; invert them, and you build to standard the first time.
Mirrors skill-creator's seven-phase structure with instruction-specific guidance. If a phase here disagrees with skill-creator on the shared scaffold, skill-creator wins; this file owns only the per-type guidance.
When to Use
- Authoring a new instruction in
.github/instructions/ - Refactoring an existing instruction (scope shift, applyTo recalibration, split, merge)
- Promoting a Mall instruction into your heir's brain
When not to use
- Authoring a skill (a procedure with steps) → use skill-creator
- Authoring a prompt (a slash-command workflow) → use prompt-creator
- Authoring an agent (a delegated sub-process role) → use agent-creator
- A one-off rule for a single file with no recurring trigger → not a brain artifact
The Seven Phases
Each phase inverts one of the five (or six) gates. Author against the phase, pass the gate.
Phase 1 — Intent capture
Answer in writing before any drafting:
- What rule does this enforce? One sentence. If it contains "and" / "+", you have two instructions — split.
- What is the trigger condition? Concrete — drives the
applyToglob in Phase 3. "When working on Azure code", "On every turn", "On files inAI-Memory/". - What does the agent do differently when this fires? Be specific. If the answer is "be more careful", the rule is too vague.
If the rule is a procedure (multi-step operation) rather than a condition-action pair, stop — author a skill, not an instruction.
Phase 2 — Prior-art scan
Select-String -Path .github/instructions/*.instructions.md -Pattern "<keyword>"| Finding | Action |
| Existing instruction covers ≥70% | Extend the existing one, don't create a new file |
Adjacent instruction with different applyTo | Check if scopes can merge under a wider applyTo |
| Mall instruction covers it | Adopt the Mall unit, retarget frontmatter |
| Nothing exists | Author from scratch — legitimate gap |
Phase 3 — Draft against Gate 1 (Spec) and calibrate applyTo
Frontmatter template:
---
description: "<third-person, what + when, ≤1024 chars>"
applyTo: "<glob pattern>"
lastReviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
---applyTo calibration is the load-bearing decision for instructions. Too broad = token waste on every turn; too narrow = misses the cases it should catch.
| Trigger condition | applyTo shape | Example |
| Every turn (always-on framework discipline) | ** | act-pass, epistemic-calibration |
| Files matching a path pattern | **/path/**, **/*.ext | markdown-mermaid (**/*.md), git-workflow (**/.*git*,**/.github/**) |
| Domain keyword in conversation | **/*keyword* | mcp-development (**/*mcp*) |
| Specific subdirectory | **/AI-Memory/** | cross-project-isolation, pii-memory-filter |
If applyTo: "**", the body must include an explicit always-on rationale section (Gate 6 requirement).
File location: .github/instructions/<kebab-name>.instructions.md (flat — no subfolders).
Phase 4 — Draft against Gate 2 (Quality)
| Criterion | How you author for it |
| Directive voice | Rules as Condition → Action tables. Imperative verbs. No narrative ("when we introduced this..."). |
| Single responsibility | One rule per file. If the title contains "and", split. |
| Rule tables over prose | Tables for the rules; prose only for rationale and anti-patterns. |
Has ## Would Revise If | Date / count+time / observable event. Per your heir's falsifiability-deadlines discipline. |
| At least one anti-pattern table | Surfaces what the rule is not asking for. |
| ≤200 lines (pattern-applied) or ≤150 lines (always-on) | See Gate 6 for always-on. |
Phase 5 — Draft against Gate 3 (Scope)
| Target | Route |
| Framework-level (manifesto, tenets, claims) | Stop. Decision record, not instruction. |
| Generic across many projects | Keep in your heir baseline (Edition mirror) |
| Single project or narrow domain | That project's local-only repo |
| External-surface rule | Not an ACT instruction — author a Mall unit |
Phase 6 — Draft against Gate 4 (Safety)
Same checks as skill-creator Phase 6. Instructions rarely bundle scripts, but if they reference scripts, the script-discipline rules from skill-creator apply.
Phase 7 — Dogfood self-audit (with Gate 6 if always-on)
Before committing, run instruction-review's five gates (plus Gate 6 for always-on). Verdict lives in the commit message.
Gate 6 check — only for applyTo: "**":
- Body ≤150 lines
- Explicit "always-on rationale" prose names why this fires every turn
- No duplication of content owned by a skill
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-pattern | Correction |
Setting applyTo: "**" because you're unsure of the trigger | Phase 1 forces you to name the trigger. If you can't, you don't have an instruction yet. |
| Authoring a procedure as an instruction | Procedures with steps are skills. Move it. |
| Skipping the prior-art grep | Grep is cheap; duplicate authoring is expensive. |
| Hiding the falsifier in prose | Use a ## Would Revise If heading; per your falsifiability discipline the section must be explicit. |
| Letting an always-on instruction creep past 150 lines | Always-on cost is per-turn × every-session. Cut, or narrow the applyTo. |
| Copy-pasting from a skill body into an instruction | The skill is source of truth. Cross-link. |
Falsifiability
This skill's design has failed if any of the following occur within 90 days:
- ≥2 instructions authored using this guide fail
instruction-reviewGate 1 or Gate 6 on first self-audit (phases didn't internalize the gates) - No new instructions authored via this guide in 90 days (decorative, not load-bearing — sunset)
applyTocalibration table produces consistent miscalibration (always-on chosen where pattern would do, or vice versa) ≥3 times in a quarter
Track as you would any falsified discipline (commit log, retraining notes, or curation ledger if your repo ships one) tagged [INSTRUCTION-CREATOR-MISS].
Related
- instruction-review — the five gates (+ Gate 6) this skill inverts
- skill-creator — sibling for skills; canonical seven-phase scaffold
- prompt-creator — sibling for prompts
- agent-creator — sibling for agents
- act-pass — required for medium-stakes instruction authoring
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.

