skill-author · git:20260617.575420b · 2026-06-17 · sha256 d1ea29f007896405
skill-author git:20260617.575420bA
Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/d1ea29f007896405.
--- name: skill-author description: Draft a well-formed new skill (a SKILL.md scaffold, optionally with scripts/references) from a described recurring need, for human review and approval. Use whenever a repeated workflow gap has no existing skill covering it, when someone wants to propose or create a new skill or capability, or when an agentic system detects a recurring problem that warrants a brand-new skill rather than editing an existing one. Domain-general — works for any modeling or workflow domain; SWMM is just one example. --- # Skill author Turn a description of a recurring need into a **draft skill** that a human can review and approve. This skill writes proposals; it never installs, activates, or edits skills on its own — a freshly drafted skill is a proposal, not a verified capability. It is domain-general: nothing here is specific to stormwater or SWMM. The same recipe produces a skill for any modeling or workflow domain. ## When to use - A recurring problem keeps showing up and **no existing skill covers it** — the gap itself is the trigger to propose a new one. - Someone asks to "create / propose / draft a new skill" for some capability. - An agentic system (e.g. a memory or lessons-learned layer) flags a repeated pattern that warrants a new skill rather than a tweak to an existing one. If an existing skill already covers most of the need, **improve that one instead** — don't create a near-duplicate (see step 2). ## How to draft a skill 1. **Capture intent.** Pin down three things before writing: (a) what should this skill let the agent *do*? (b) *when* should it trigger — what phrases or contexts? (c) what does it *produce* (output format)? Pull answers from the conversation or the evidence you were handed; only ask the human for what's genuinely missing. 2. **Check for overlap first.** List the existing skills and check whether one already does most of this. If so, propose refining that skill instead of adding a new one — avoiding skill sprawl keeps the library discoverable. 3. **Fill the template.** Copy `assets/SKILL.template.md` and fill it in. The two fields that matter most: - `name` — kebab-case, matches the folder name. - `description` — this is *how the agent decides to use the skill*, so make it specific and slightly pushy: say what it does AND the concrete situations it should trigger in. A vague description means the skill never fires. Keep the body lean and **explain the why** behind each instruction — a capable model follows reasoning better than rigid ALL-CAPS rules. See `references/skill-format.md` for the full recipe (anatomy, progressive disclosure, writing patterns). 4. **Validate.** Run the checker and fix anything it flags: ```bash python3 scripts/validate_skill.py path/to/draft-skill ``` It confirms the SKILL.md has a name and a real description, the name matches the folder, and the body isn't empty. 5. **Present for approval.** Show the human the drafted skill plus the need/evidence that motivated it, and let them accept or reject. **Nothing is installed until they say yes.** Keep their part to a single yes/no — do the drafting work for them. ## What makes a good skill Read `references/skill-format.md` before writing the body. It condenses the skill anatomy (SKILL.md + optional `scripts/` `references/` `assets/`), progressive disclosure (keep SKILL.md lean, push detail to `references/`), how to write a `description` that actually triggers, and the writing patterns that make instructions work. ## Output contract A draft skill folder: ``` <skill-name>/ ├── SKILL.md (required: name + description frontmatter, lean body) ├── references/ (optional: detailed docs loaded on demand) ├── assets/ (optional: templates / files used in output) └── scripts/ (optional: deterministic helpers) ``` Place the draft in a staging / proposals area for review — do **not** drop it into a live skills directory until the human approves. ## Safety / boundaries - **Propose, never auto-apply.** Don't install a drafted skill, activate it, or edit existing skills without explicit human approval. - **A draft is not a verified capability.** It still needs human review and, where the domain has them, benchmark or test verification before it's trusted. - **No surprises.** A skill's contents must match its stated intent — no hidden behavior, no malware, nothing that exfiltrates data or does something the description doesn't admit. - **Stay domain-general.** Don't bake one domain's assumptions (specific node names, a fixed file layout) into this authoring skill itself.