@kl-c/matrixos 0.1.7 → 0.1.9

package/dist/skills/superpowers-writing-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,692 @@
+---
+name: writing-skills
+description: Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
+---
+> **Forked from [obra/superpowers](https://github.com/obra/superpowers) — MIT License, Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent.**
+> Vendored as a native MaTrixOS skill. The original MIT license text is in `SUPERPOWERS_LICENSE` in this folder.
+> Routing rule: MaTrixOS owns plan/execute/verify (ulw-plan, start-work, review-work). This skill is a complementary aid, invoked on demand.
+
+# Writing Skills
+
+## Overview
+
+**Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.**
+
+**Personal skills live in your runtime's skills directory** 
+
+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 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
+
+## SKILL.md Structure
+
+**Frontmatter (YAML):**
+- Two required fields: `name` and `description` (see [agentskills.io/specification](https://agentskills.io/specification) for all supported fields)
+- Max 1024 characters total
+- `name`: Use letters, numbers, and hyphens only (no parentheses, special chars)
+- `description`: Third-person, describes ONLY when to use (NOT what it does)
+  - Start with "Use when..." to focus on triggering conditions
+  - Include specific symptoms, situations, and contexts
+  - **NEVER summarize the skill's process or workflow** (see SDO section for why)
+  - Keep under 500 characters if possible
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: Skill-Name-With-Hyphens
+description: Use when [specific triggering conditions and symptoms]
+---
+
+# Skill Name
+
+## Overview
+What is this? Core principle in 1-2 sentences.
+
+## When to Use
+[Small inline flowchart IF decision non-obvious]
+
+Bullet list with SYMPTOMS and use cases
+When NOT to use
+
+## Core Pattern (for techniques/patterns)
+Before/after code comparison
+
+## Quick Reference
+Table or bullets for scanning common operations
+
+## Implementation
+Inline code for simple patterns
+Link to file for heavy reference or reusable tools
+
+## Common Mistakes
+What goes wrong + fixes
+
+## Real-World Impact (optional)
+Concrete results
+```
+
+
+## Skill Discovery Optimization (SDO)
+
+**Critical for discovery:** Future agents need to FIND your skill
+
+### 1. Rich Description Field
+
+**Purpose:** Your agent reads the description to decide which skills to load for a given task. Make it answer: "Should I read this skill right now?"
+
+**Format:** Start with "Use when..." to focus on triggering conditions
+
+**CRITICAL: Description = When to Use, NOT What the Skill Does**
+
+The description should ONLY describe triggering conditions. Do NOT summarize the skill's process or workflow in the description.
+
+**Why this matters:** Testing revealed that when a description summarizes the skill's workflow, an agent may follow the description instead of reading the full skill content. A description saying "code review between tasks" caused an agent to do ONE review, even though the skill's flowchart clearly showed TWO reviews (spec compliance then code quality).
+
+When the description was changed to just "Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks" (no workflow summary), the agent correctly read the flowchart and followed the two-stage review process.
+
+**The trap:** Descriptions that summarize workflow create a shortcut agents will take. The skill body becomes documentation agents skip.
+
+```yaml
+# ❌ BAD: Summarizes workflow - agents may follow this instead of reading skill
+description: Use when executing plans - dispatches subagent per task with code review between tasks
+
+# ❌ BAD: Too much process detail
+description: Use for TDD - write test first, watch it fail, write minimal code, refactor
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Just triggering conditions, no workflow summary
+description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Triggering conditions only
+description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
+```
+
+**Content:**
+- Use concrete triggers, symptoms, and situations that signal this skill applies
+- Describe the *problem* (race conditions, inconsistent behavior) not *language-specific symptoms* (setTimeout, sleep)
+- Keep triggers technology-agnostic unless the skill itself is technology-specific
+- If skill is technology-specific, make that explicit in the trigger
+- Write in third person (injected into system prompt)
+- **NEVER summarize the skill's process or workflow**
+
+```yaml
+# ❌ BAD: Too abstract, vague, doesn't include when to use
+description: For async testing
+
+# ❌ BAD: First person
+description: I can help you with async tests when they're flaky
+
+# ❌ BAD: Mentions technology but skill isn't specific to it
+description: Use when tests use setTimeout/sleep and are flaky
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Starts with "Use when", describes problem, no workflow
+description: Use when tests have race conditions, timing dependencies, or pass/fail inconsistently
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Technology-specific skill with explicit trigger
+description: Use when using React Router and handling authentication redirects
+```
+
+### 2. Keyword Coverage
+
+Use words an agent would search for:
+- Error messages: "Hook timed out", "ENOTEMPTY", "race condition"
+- Symptoms: "flaky", "hanging", "zombie", "pollution"
+- Synonyms: "timeout/hang/freeze", "cleanup/teardown/afterEach"
+- Tools: Actual commands, library names, file types
+
+### 3. Descriptive Naming
+
+**Use active voice, verb-first:**
+- ✅ `creating-skills` not `skill-creation`
+- ✅ `condition-based-waiting` not `async-test-helpers`
+
+### 4. Token Efficiency (Critical)
+
+**Problem:** getting-started and frequently-referenced skills load into EVERY conversation. Every token counts.
+
+**Target word counts:**
+- getting-started workflows: <150 words each
+- Frequently-loaded skills: <200 words total
+- Other skills: <500 words (still be concise)
+
+**Techniques:**
+
+**Move details to tool help:**
+```bash
+# ❌ BAD: Document all flags in SKILL.md
+search-conversations supports --text, --both, --after DATE, --before DATE, --limit N
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Reference --help
+search-conversations supports multiple modes and filters. Run --help for details.
+```
+
+**Use cross-references:**
+```markdown
+# ❌ BAD: Repeat workflow details
+When searching, dispatch subagent with template...
+[20 lines of repeated instructions]
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Reference other skill
+Always use subagents (50-100x context savings). REQUIRED: Use [other-skill-name] for workflow.
+```
+
+**Compress examples:**
+```markdown
+# ❌ BAD: Verbose example (42 words)
+your human partner: "How did we handle authentication errors in React Router before?"
+You: I'll search past conversations for React Router authentication patterns.
+[Dispatch subagent with search query: "React Router authentication error handling 401"]
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Minimal example (20 words)
+Partner: "How did we handle auth errors in React Router?"
+You: Searching...
+[Dispatch subagent → synthesis]
+```
+
+**Eliminate redundancy:**
+- Don't repeat what's in cross-referenced skills
+- Don't explain what's obvious from command
+- Don't include multiple examples of same pattern
+
+**Verification:**
+```bash
+wc -w skills/path/SKILL.md
+# getting-started workflows: aim for <150 each
+# Other frequently-loaded: aim for <200 total
+```
+
+**Name by what you DO or core insight:**
+- ✅ `condition-based-waiting` > `async-test-helpers`
+- ✅ `using-skills` not `skill-usage`
+- ✅ `flatten-with-flags` > `data-structure-refactoring`
+- ✅ `root-cause-tracing` > `debugging-techniques`
+
+**Gerunds (-ing) work well for processes:**
+- `creating-skills`, `testing-skills`, `debugging-with-logs`
+- Active, describes the action you're taking
+
+### 5. Cross-Referencing Other Skills
+
+**When writing documentation that references other skills:**
+
+Use skill name only, with explicit requirement markers:
+- ✅ Good: `**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:test-driven-development`
+- ✅ Good: `**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand superpowers:systematic-debugging`
+- ❌ Bad: `See skills/testing/test-driven-development` (unclear if required)
+- ❌ Bad: `@skills/testing/test-driven-development/SKILL.md` (force-loads, burns context)
+
+**Why no @ links:** `@` syntax force-loads files immediately, consuming 200k+ context before you need them.
+
+## Flowchart Usage
+
+```dot
+digraph when_flowchart {
+    "Need to show information?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Decision where I might go wrong?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Use markdown" [shape=box];
+    "Small inline flowchart" [shape=box];
+
+    "Need to show information?" -> "Decision where I might go wrong?" [label="yes"];
+    "Decision where I might go wrong?" -> "Small inline flowchart" [label="yes"];
+    "Decision where I might go wrong?" -> "Use markdown" [label="no"];
+}
+```
+
+**Use flowcharts ONLY for:**
+- Non-obvious decision points
+- Process loops where you might stop too early
+- "When to use A vs B" decisions
+
+**Never use flowcharts for:**
+- Reference material → Tables, lists
+- Code examples → Markdown blocks
+- Linear instructions → Numbered lists
+- Labels without semantic meaning (step1, helper2)
+
+See `graphviz-conventions.dot` in this directory for graphviz style rules.
+
+**Visualizing for your human partner:** Use `render-graphs.js` in this directory to render a skill's flowcharts to SVG:
+```bash
+./render-graphs.js ../some-skill           # Each diagram separately
+./render-graphs.js ../some-skill --combine # All diagrams in one SVG
+```
+
+## 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
+
+## 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 Bulletproofing below) | 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 Skills Against Rationalization
+
+Skills that enforce discipline (like TDD) need to resist rationalization. Agents are smart and will find loopholes when under pressure.
+
+**Scope:** this toolkit is for discipline failures — an agent that knows the rule and skips it under pressure. For wrong-shaped output or omitted elements, prohibition-based bulletproofing backfires; use the forms in Match the Form to the Failure instead.
+
+**Psychology note:** Understanding WHY persuasion techniques work helps you apply them systematically. See persuasion-principles.md for research foundation (Cialdini, 2021; Meincke et al., 2025) on authority, commitment, scarcity, social proof, and unity principles.
+
+### Close Every Loophole Explicitly
+
+Don't just state the rule - forbid specific workarounds:
+
+<Bad>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it.
+```
+</Bad>
+
+<Good>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it. Start over.
+
+**No exceptions:**
+- Don't keep it as "reference"
+- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
+- Don't look at it
+- Delete means delete
+```
+</Good>
+
+### Address "Spirit vs Letter" Arguments
+
+Add foundational principle early:
+
+```markdown
+**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
+```
+
+This cuts off entire class of "I'm following the spirit" rationalizations.
+
+### Build Rationalization Table
+
+Capture rationalizations from baseline testing (see Testing section below). Every excuse agents make goes in the table:
+
+```markdown
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
+| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
+```
+
+### Create Red Flags List
+
+Make it easy for agents to self-check when rationalizing:
+
+```markdown
+## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
+
+- Code before test
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
+- "It's about spirit not ritual"
+- "This is different because..."
+
+**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
+```
+
+### Update SDO for Violation Symptoms
+
+Add to description: symptoms of when you're ABOUT to violate the rule:
+
+```yaml
+description: use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
+```
+
+## 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 [testing-skills-with-subagents.md](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.
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Creating skills IS TDD for process documentation.**
+
+Same Iron Law: No skill without failing test first.
+Same cycle: RED (baseline) → GREEN (write skill) → REFACTOR (close loopholes).
+Same benefits: Better quality, fewer surprises, bulletproof results.
+
+If you follow TDD for code, follow it for skills. It's the same discipline applied to documentation.