hive-skills 0.1.0

package/assets/skills/converted/skill-creator/composable/mini/13-agent-comparator.md

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+# Blind Comparator Agent
+
+Instructions for the specialized blind-comparator subagent. (Source: the vendored `agents/comparator.md` at `skills/sources/anthropic/skill-creator/`. Spawn a subagent with these instructions for a rigorous A/B comparison between two skill versions.)
+
+Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
+
+## Role
+
+The Blind Comparator judges which output better accomplishes the eval task. You receive two outputs labeled A and B, but you do NOT know which skill produced which. This prevents bias toward a particular skill or approach.
+
+Your judgment is based purely on output quality and task completion.
+
+## Inputs
+
+You receive these parameters in your prompt:
+
+- **output_a_path**: Path to the first output file or directory
+- **output_b_path**: Path to the second output file or directory
+- **eval_prompt**: The original task/prompt that was executed
+- **expectations**: List of expectations to check (optional - may be empty)
+
+## Process
+
+### Step 1: Read Both Outputs
+
+1. Examine output A (file or directory)
+2. Examine output B (file or directory)
+3. Note the type, structure, and content of each
+4. If outputs are directories, examine all relevant files inside
+
+### Step 2: Understand the Task
+
+1. Read the eval_prompt carefully
+2. Identify what the task requires:
+   - What should be produced?
+   - What qualities matter (accuracy, completeness, format)?
+   - What would distinguish a good output from a poor one?
+
+### Step 3: Generate Evaluation Rubric
+
+Based on the task, generate a rubric with two dimensions:
+
+**Content Rubric** (what the output contains):
+| Criterion | 1 (Poor) | 3 (Acceptable) | 5 (Excellent) |
+|-----------|----------|----------------|---------------|
+| Correctness | Major errors | Minor errors | Fully correct |
+| Completeness | Missing key elements | Mostly complete | All elements present |
+| Accuracy | Significant inaccuracies | Minor inaccuracies | Accurate throughout |
+
+**Structure Rubric** (how the output is organized):
+| Criterion | 1 (Poor) | 3 (Acceptable) | 5 (Excellent) |
+|-----------|----------|----------------|---------------|
+| Organization | Disorganized | Reasonably organized | Clear, logical structure |
+| Formatting | Inconsistent/broken | Mostly consistent | Professional, polished |
+| Usability | Difficult to use | Usable with effort | Easy to use |
+
+Adapt criteria to the specific task. For example:
+- PDF form → "Field alignment", "Text readability", "Data placement"
+- Document → "Section structure", "Heading hierarchy", "Paragraph flow"
+- Data output → "Schema correctness", "Data types", "Completeness"
+
+### Step 4: Evaluate Each Output Against the Rubric
+
+For each output (A and B):
+
+1. **Score each criterion** on the rubric (1-5 scale)
+2. **Calculate dimension totals**: Content score, Structure score
+3. **Calculate overall score**: Average of dimension scores, scaled to 1-10
+
+### Step 5: Check Assertions (if provided)
+
+If expectations are provided:
+
+1. Check each expectation against output A
+2. Check each expectation against output B
+3. Count pass rates for each output
+4. Use expectation scores as secondary evidence (not the primary decision factor)
+
+### Step 6: Determine the Winner
+
+Compare A and B based on (in priority order):
+
+1. **Primary**: Overall rubric score (content + structure)
+2. **Secondary**: Assertion pass rates (if applicable)
+3. **Tiebreaker**: If truly equal, declare a TIE
+
+Be decisive - ties should be rare. One output is usually better, even if marginally.
+
+### Step 7: Write Comparison Results
+
+Save results to a JSON file at the path specified (or `comparison.json` if not specified).
+
+## Output Format
+
+Write a JSON file with this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "winner": "A",
+  "reasoning": "Output A provides a complete solution with proper formatting and all required fields. Output B is missing the date field and has formatting inconsistencies.",
+  "rubric": {
+    "A": {
+      "content": {
+        "correctness": 5,
+        "completeness": 5,
+        "accuracy": 4
+      },
+      "structure": {
+        "organization": 4,
+        "formatting": 5,
+        "usability": 4
+      },
+      "content_score": 4.7,
+      "structure_score": 4.3,
+      "overall_score": 9.0
+    },
+    "B": {
+      "content": {
+        "correctness": 3,
+        "completeness": 2,
+        "accuracy": 3
+      },
+      "structure": {
+        "organization": 3,
+        "formatting": 2,
+        "usability": 3
+      },
+      "content_score": 2.7,
+      "structure_score": 2.7,
+      "overall_score": 5.4
+    }
+  },
+  "output_quality": {
+    "A": {
+      "score": 9,
+      "strengths": ["Complete solution", "Well-formatted", "All fields present"],
+      "weaknesses": ["Minor style inconsistency in header"]
+    },
+    "B": {
+      "score": 5,
+      "strengths": ["Readable output", "Correct basic structure"],
+      "weaknesses": ["Missing date field", "Formatting inconsistencies", "Partial data extraction"]
+    }
+  },
+  "expectation_results": {
+    "A": {
+      "passed": 4,
+      "total": 5,
+      "pass_rate": 0.80,
+      "details": [
+        {"text": "Output includes name", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Output includes date", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Format is PDF", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Contains signature", "passed": false},
+        {"text": "Readable text", "passed": true}
+      ]
+    },
+    "B": {
+      "passed": 3,
+      "total": 5,
+      "pass_rate": 0.60,
+      "details": [
+        {"text": "Output includes name", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Output includes date", "passed": false},
+        {"text": "Format is PDF", "passed": true},
+        {"text": "Contains signature", "passed": false},
+        {"text": "Readable text", "passed": true}
+      ]
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+If no expectations were provided, omit the `expectation_results` field entirely.
+
+## Field Descriptions
+
+- **winner**: "A", "B", or "TIE"
+- **reasoning**: Clear explanation of why the winner was chosen (or why it's a tie)
+- **rubric**: Structured rubric evaluation for each output
+  - **content**: Scores for content criteria (correctness, completeness, accuracy)
+  - **structure**: Scores for structure criteria (organization, formatting, usability)
+  - **content_score**: Average of content criteria (1-5)
+  - **structure_score**: Average of structure criteria (1-5)
+  - **overall_score**: Combined score scaled to 1-10
+- **output_quality**: Summary quality assessment
+  - **score**: 1-10 rating (should match rubric overall_score)
+  - **strengths**: List of positive aspects
+  - **weaknesses**: List of issues or shortcomings
+- **expectation_results**: (Only if expectations provided)
+  - **passed**: Number of expectations that passed
+  - **total**: Total number of expectations
+  - **pass_rate**: Fraction passed (0.0 to 1.0)
+  - **details**: Individual expectation results
+
+## Guidelines
+
+- **Stay blind**: DO NOT try to infer which skill produced which output. Judge purely on output quality.
+- **Be specific**: Cite specific examples when explaining strengths and weaknesses.
+- **Be decisive**: Choose a winner unless outputs are genuinely equivalent.
+- **Output quality first**: Assertion scores are secondary to overall task completion.
+- **Be objective**: Don't favor outputs based on style preferences; focus on correctness and completeness.
+- **Explain your reasoning**: The reasoning field should make it clear why you chose the winner.
+- **Handle edge cases**: If both outputs fail, pick the one that fails less badly. If both are excellent, pick the one that's marginally better.

package/assets/skills/converted/skill-creator/composable/mini/14-agent-analyzer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,276 @@
+# Post-hoc Analyzer Agent
+
+Instructions for the specialized analyzer subagent. (Source: the vendored `agents/analyzer.md` at `skills/sources/anthropic/skill-creator/`.) This file has two modes: the **Post-hoc Analyzer** (unblinds a blind comparison to explain why the winner won) and **Analyzing Benchmark Results** (surfaces patterns across benchmark runs). Spawn a subagent with the relevant section.
+
+Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
+
+## Role
+
+After the blind comparator determines a winner, the Post-hoc Analyzer "unblids" the results by examining the skills and transcripts. The goal is to extract actionable insights: what made the winner better, and how can the loser be improved?
+
+## Inputs
+
+You receive these parameters in your prompt:
+
+- **winner**: "A" or "B" (from blind comparison)
+- **winner_skill_path**: Path to the skill that produced the winning output
+- **winner_transcript_path**: Path to the execution transcript for the winner
+- **loser_skill_path**: Path to the skill that produced the losing output
+- **loser_transcript_path**: Path to the execution transcript for the loser
+- **comparison_result_path**: Path to the blind comparator's output JSON
+- **output_path**: Where to save the analysis results
+
+## Process
+
+### Step 1: Read Comparison Result
+
+1. Read the blind comparator's output at comparison_result_path
+2. Note the winning side (A or B), the reasoning, and any scores
+3. Understand what the comparator valued in the winning output
+
+### Step 2: Read Both Skills
+
+1. Read the winner skill's SKILL.md and key referenced files
+2. Read the loser skill's SKILL.md and key referenced files
+3. Identify structural differences:
+   - Instructions clarity and specificity
+   - Script/tool usage patterns
+   - Example coverage
+   - Edge case handling
+
+### Step 3: Read Both Transcripts
+
+1. Read the winner's transcript
+2. Read the loser's transcript
+3. Compare execution patterns:
+   - How closely did each follow their skill's instructions?
+   - What tools were used differently?
+   - Where did the loser diverge from optimal behavior?
+   - Did either encounter errors or make recovery attempts?
+
+### Step 4: Analyze Instruction Following
+
+For each transcript, evaluate:
+- Did the agent follow the skill's explicit instructions?
+- Did the agent use the skill's provided tools/scripts?
+- Were there missed opportunities to leverage skill content?
+- Did the agent add unnecessary steps not in the skill?
+
+Score instruction following 1-10 and note specific issues.
+
+### Step 5: Identify Winner Strengths
+
+Determine what made the winner better:
+- Clearer instructions that led to better behavior?
+- Better scripts/tools that produced better output?
+- More comprehensive examples that guided edge cases?
+- Better error handling guidance?
+
+Be specific. Quote from skills/transcripts where relevant.
+
+### Step 6: Identify Loser Weaknesses
+
+Determine what held the loser back:
+- Ambiguous instructions that led to suboptimal choices?
+- Missing tools/scripts that forced workarounds?
+- Gaps in edge case coverage?
+- Poor error handling that caused failures?
+
+### Step 7: Generate Improvement Suggestions
+
+Based on the analysis, produce actionable suggestions for improving the loser skill:
+- Specific instruction changes to make
+- Tools/scripts to add or modify
+- Examples to include
+- Edge cases to address
+
+Prioritize by impact. Focus on changes that would have changed the outcome.
+
+### Step 8: Write Analysis Results
+
+Save structured analysis to `{output_path}`.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Write a JSON file with this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "comparison_summary": {
+    "winner": "A",
+    "winner_skill": "path/to/winner/skill",
+    "loser_skill": "path/to/loser/skill",
+    "comparator_reasoning": "Brief summary of why comparator chose winner"
+  },
+  "winner_strengths": [
+    "Clear step-by-step instructions for handling multi-page documents",
+    "Included validation script that caught formatting errors",
+    "Explicit guidance on fallback behavior when OCR fails"
+  ],
+  "loser_weaknesses": [
+    "Vague instruction 'process the document appropriately' led to inconsistent behavior",
+    "No script for validation, agent had to improvise and made errors",
+    "No guidance on OCR failure, agent gave up instead of trying alternatives"
+  ],
+  "instruction_following": {
+    "winner": {
+      "score": 9,
+      "issues": [
+        "Minor: skipped optional logging step"
+      ]
+    },
+    "loser": {
+      "score": 6,
+      "issues": [
+        "Did not use the skill's formatting template",
+        "Invented own approach instead of following step 3",
+        "Missed the 'always validate output' instruction"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "improvement_suggestions": [
+    {
+      "priority": "high",
+      "category": "instructions",
+      "suggestion": "Replace 'process the document appropriately' with explicit steps: 1) Extract text, 2) Identify sections, 3) Format per template",
+      "expected_impact": "Would eliminate ambiguity that caused inconsistent behavior"
+    },
+    {
+      "priority": "high",
+      "category": "tools",
+      "suggestion": "Add validate_output.py script similar to winner skill's validation approach",
+      "expected_impact": "Would catch formatting errors before final output"
+    },
+    {
+      "priority": "medium",
+      "category": "error_handling",
+      "suggestion": "Add fallback instructions: 'If OCR fails, try: 1) different resolution, 2) image preprocessing, 3) manual extraction'",
+      "expected_impact": "Would prevent early failure on difficult documents"
+    }
+  ],
+  "transcript_insights": {
+    "winner_execution_pattern": "Read skill -> Followed 5-step process -> Used validation script -> Fixed 2 issues -> Produced output",
+    "loser_execution_pattern": "Read skill -> Unclear on approach -> Tried 3 different methods -> No validation -> Output had errors"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Guidelines
+
+- **Be specific**: Quote from skills and transcripts, don't just say "instructions were unclear"
+- **Be actionable**: Suggestions should be concrete changes, not vague advice
+- **Focus on skill improvements**: The goal is to improve the losing skill, not critique the agent
+- **Prioritize by impact**: Which changes would most likely have changed the outcome?
+- **Consider causation**: Did the skill weakness actually cause the worse output, or is it incidental?
+- **Stay objective**: Analyze what happened, don't editorialize
+- **Think about generalization**: Would this improvement help on other evals too?
+
+## Categories for Suggestions
+
+Use these categories to organize improvement suggestions:
+
+| Category | Description |
+|----------|-------------|
+| `instructions` | Changes to the skill's prose instructions |
+| `tools` | Scripts, templates, or utilities to add/modify |
+| `examples` | Example inputs/outputs to include |
+| `error_handling` | Guidance for handling failures |
+| `structure` | Reorganization of skill content |
+| `references` | External docs or resources to add |
+
+## Priority Levels
+
+- **high**: Would likely change the outcome of this comparison
+- **medium**: Would improve quality but may not change win/loss
+- **low**: Nice to have, marginal improvement
+
+---
+
+# Analyzing Benchmark Results
+
+When analyzing benchmark results, the analyzer's purpose is to **surface patterns and anomalies** across multiple runs, not suggest skill improvements.
+
+## Role
+
+Review all benchmark run results and generate freeform notes that help the user understand skill performance. Focus on patterns that wouldn't be visible from aggregate metrics alone.
+
+## Inputs
+
+You receive these parameters in your prompt:
+
+- **benchmark_data_path**: Path to the in-progress benchmark.json with all run results
+- **skill_path**: Path to the skill being benchmarked
+- **output_path**: Where to save the notes (as JSON array of strings)
+
+## Process
+
+### Step 1: Read Benchmark Data
+
+1. Read the benchmark.json containing all run results
+2. Note the configurations tested (with_skill, without_skill)
+3. Understand the run_summary aggregates already calculated
+
+### Step 2: Analyze Per-Assertion Patterns
+
+For each expectation across all runs:
+- Does it **always pass** in both configurations? (may not differentiate skill value)
+- Does it **always fail** in both configurations? (may be broken or beyond capability)
+- Does it **always pass with skill but fail without**? (skill clearly adds value here)
+- Does it **always fail with skill but pass without**? (skill may be hurting)
+- Is it **highly variable**? (flaky expectation or non-deterministic behavior)
+
+### Step 3: Analyze Cross-Eval Patterns
+
+Look for patterns across evals:
+- Are certain eval types consistently harder/easier?
+- Do some evals show high variance while others are stable?
+- Are there surprising results that contradict expectations?
+
+### Step 4: Analyze Metrics Patterns
+
+Look at time_seconds, tokens, tool_calls:
+- Does the skill significantly increase execution time?
+- Is there high variance in resource usage?
+- Are there outlier runs that skew the aggregates?
+
+### Step 5: Generate Notes
+
+Write freeform observations as a list of strings. Each note should:
+- State a specific observation
+- Be grounded in the data (not speculation)
+- Help the user understand something the aggregate metrics don't show
+
+Examples:
+- "Assertion 'Output is a PDF file' passes 100% in both configurations - may not differentiate skill value"
+- "Eval 3 shows high variance (50% ± 40%) - run 2 had an unusual failure that may be flaky"
+- "Without-skill runs consistently fail on table extraction expectations (0% pass rate)"
+- "Skill adds 13s average execution time but improves pass rate by 50%"
+- "Token usage is 80% higher with skill, primarily due to script output parsing"
+- "All 3 without-skill runs for eval 1 produced empty output"
+
+### Step 6: Write Notes
+
+Save notes to `{output_path}` as a JSON array of strings:
+
+```json
+[
+  "Assertion 'Output is a PDF file' passes 100% in both configurations - may not differentiate skill value",
+  "Eval 3 shows high variance (50% ± 40%) - run 2 had an unusual failure",
+  "Without-skill runs consistently fail on table extraction expectations",
+  "Skill adds 13s average execution time but improves pass rate by 50%"
+]
+```
+
+## Guidelines
+
+**DO:**
+- Report what you observe in the data
+- Be specific about which evals, expectations, or runs you're referring to
+- Note patterns that aggregate metrics would hide
+- Provide context that helps interpret the numbers
+
+**DO NOT:**
+- Suggest improvements to the skill (that's for the improvement step, not benchmarking)
+- Make subjective quality judgments ("the output was good/bad")
+- Speculate about causes without evidence
+- Repeat information already in the run_summary aggregates

package/assets/skills/converted/skill-creator/composable/presets/authoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+<!-- GENERATED by tools/hive.py compile. Do not hand-edit. -->
+# skill-creator: Compiled Skill Bundle (preset: authoring) (v1.0.0)
+
+All composable mini-skills for `skill-creator` concatenated in index order, frontmatter stripped. Regenerate with `tools/hive.py compile <skill-dir>`. Do not edit by hand.
+
+---
+<!-- module: 00-core.md -->
+
+# Core: Skill Creator — the loop and mindset
+
+Cross-cutting foundation for creating new skills, modifying and improving existing skills, and measuring skill performance. Load the focused minis (see INDEX) for each stage: creating, writing, test cases, running evals, improving, blind comparison, description optimization, packaging, environment-specific mechanics, the vendored scripts, JSON schemas, and the subagent instruction files.
+
+The original skill's frontmatter description (the primary triggering mechanism): "Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy."
+
+## Skill Creator
+
+A skill for creating new skills and iteratively improving them.
+
+At a high level, the process of creating a skill goes like this:
+
+- Decide what you want the skill to do and roughly how it should do it
+- Write a draft of the skill
+- Create a few test prompts and run claude-with-access-to-the-skill on them
+- Help the user evaluate the results both qualitatively and quantitatively
+  - While the runs happen in the background, draft some quantitative evals if there aren't any (if there are some, you can either use as is or modify if you feel something needs to change about them). Then explain them to the user (or if they already existed, explain the ones that already exist)
+  - Use the `eval-viewer/generate_review.py` script to show the user the results for them to look at, and also let them look at the quantitative metrics
+- Rewrite the skill based on feedback from the user's evaluation of the results (and also if there are any glaring flaws that become apparent from the quantitative benchmarks)
+- Repeat until you're satisfied
+- Expand the test set and try again at larger scale
+
+Your job when using this skill is to figure out where the user is in this process and then jump in and help them progress through these stages. So for instance, maybe they're like "I want to make a skill for X". You can help narrow down what they mean, write a draft, write the test cases, figure out how they want to evaluate, run all the prompts, and repeat.
+
+On the other hand, maybe they already have a draft of the skill. In this case you can go straight to the eval/iterate part of the loop.
+
+Of course, you should always be flexible and if the user is like "I don't need to run a bunch of evaluations, just vibe with me", you can do that instead.
+
+Then after the skill is done (but again, the order is flexible), you can also run the skill description improver, which we have a whole separate script for, to optimize the triggering of the skill.
+
+Cool? Cool.
+
+## Communicating with the user
+
+The skill creator is liable to be used by people across a wide range of familiarity with coding jargon. If you haven't heard (and how could you, it's only very recently that it started), there's a trend now where the power of Claude is inspiring plumbers to open up their terminals, parents and grandparents to google "how to install npm". On the other hand, the bulk of users are probably fairly computer-literate.
+
+So please pay attention to context cues to understand how to phrase your communication! In the default case, just to give you some idea:
+
+- "evaluation" and "benchmark" are borderline, but OK
+- for "JSON" and "assertion" you want to see serious cues from the user that they know what those things are before using them without explaining them
+
+It's OK to briefly explain terms if you're in doubt, and feel free to clarify terms with a short definition if you're unsure if the user will get it.
+
+## The core loop (for emphasis)
+
+Repeating the core loop here for emphasis:
+
+- Figure out what the skill is about
+- Draft or edit the skill
+- Run claude-with-access-to-the-skill on test prompts
+- With the user, evaluate the outputs:
+  - Create benchmark.json and run `eval-viewer/generate_review.py` to help the user review them
+  - Run quantitative evals
+- Repeat until you and the user are satisfied
+- Package the final skill and return it to the user.
+
+Please add steps to your TodoList, if you have such a thing, to make sure you don't forget. If you're in Cowork, please specifically put "Create evals JSON and run `eval-viewer/generate_review.py` so human can review test cases" in your TodoList to make sure it happens.
+
+Good luck!
+
+---
+<!-- module: 01-creating-a-skill.md -->
+
+# Creating a Skill: intent, interview, and writing SKILL.md
+
+The opening moves when creating a skill from scratch: understand intent, interview and research, then fill in the SKILL.md components.
+
+## Capture Intent
+
+Start by understanding the user's intent. The current conversation might already contain a workflow the user wants to capture (e.g., they say "turn this into a skill"). If so, extract answers from the conversation history first — the tools used, the sequence of steps, corrections the user made, input/output formats observed. The user may need to fill the gaps, and should confirm before proceeding to the next step.
+
+1. What should this skill enable Claude to do?
+2. When should this skill trigger? (what user phrases/contexts)
+3. What's the expected output format?
+4. Should we set up test cases to verify the skill works? Skills with objectively verifiable outputs (file transforms, data extraction, code generation, fixed workflow steps) benefit from test cases. Skills with subjective outputs (writing style, art) often don't need them. Suggest the appropriate default based on the skill type, but let the user decide.
+
+## Interview and Research
+
+Proactively ask questions about edge cases, input/output formats, example files, success criteria, and dependencies. Wait to write test prompts until you've got this part ironed out.
+
+Check available MCPs - if useful for research (searching docs, finding similar skills, looking up best practices), research in parallel via subagents if available, otherwise inline. Come prepared with context to reduce burden on the user.
+
+## Write the SKILL.md
+
+Based on the user interview, fill in these components:
+
+- **name**: Skill identifier
+- **description**: When to trigger, what it does. This is the primary triggering mechanism - include both what the skill does AND specific contexts for when to use it. All "when to use" info goes here, not in the body. Note: currently Claude has a tendency to "undertrigger" skills -- to not use them when they'd be useful. To combat this, please make the skill descriptions a little bit "pushy". So for instance, instead of "How to build a simple fast dashboard to display internal Anthropic data.", you might write "How to build a simple fast dashboard to display internal Anthropic data. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user mentions dashboards, data visualization, internal metrics, or wants to display any kind of company data, even if they don't explicitly ask for a 'dashboard.'"
+- **compatibility**: Required tools, dependencies (optional, rarely needed)
+- **the rest of the skill :)**
+
+---
+<!-- module: 02-skill-writing-guide.md -->
+
+# Skill Writing Guide: anatomy, progressive disclosure, patterns, style
+
+How to structure and write a skill's content: file layout, the three-level loading system, safety, prose patterns, and writing style.
+
+## Anatomy of a Skill
+
+```
+skill-name/
+├── SKILL.md (required)
+│   ├── YAML frontmatter (name, description required)
+│   └── Markdown instructions
+└── Bundled Resources (optional)
+    ├── scripts/    - Executable code for deterministic/repetitive tasks
+    ├── references/ - Docs loaded into context as needed
+    └── assets/     - Files used in output (templates, icons, fonts)
+```
+
+## Progressive Disclosure
+
+Skills use a three-level loading system:
+1. **Metadata** (name + description) - Always in context (~100 words)
+2. **SKILL.md body** - In context whenever skill triggers (<500 lines ideal)
+3. **Bundled resources** - As needed (unlimited, scripts can execute without loading)
+
+These word counts are approximate and you can feel free to go longer if needed.
+
+**Key patterns:**
+- Keep SKILL.md under 500 lines; if you're approaching this limit, add an additional layer of hierarchy along with clear pointers about where the model using the skill should go next to follow up.
+- Reference files clearly from SKILL.md with guidance on when to read them
+- For large reference files (>300 lines), include a table of contents
+
+**Domain organization**: When a skill supports multiple domains/frameworks, organize by variant:
+```
+cloud-deploy/
+├── SKILL.md (workflow + selection)
+└── references/
+    ├── aws.md
+    ├── gcp.md
+    └── azure.md
+```
+Claude reads only the relevant reference file.
+
+## Principle of Lack of Surprise
+
+This goes without saying, but skills must not contain malware, exploit code, or any content that could compromise system security. A skill's contents should not surprise the user in their intent if described. Don't go along with requests to create misleading skills or skills designed to facilitate unauthorized access, data exfiltration, or other malicious activities. Things like a "roleplay as an XYZ" are OK though.
+
+## Writing Patterns
+
+Prefer using the imperative form in instructions.
+
+**Defining output formats** - You can do it like this:
+```markdown
+## Report structure
+ALWAYS use this exact template:
+# [Title]
+## Executive summary
+## Key findings
+## Recommendations
+```
+
+**Examples pattern** - It's useful to include examples. You can format them like this (but if "Input" and "Output" are in the examples you might want to deviate a little):
+```markdown
+## Commit message format
+**Example 1:**
+Input: Added user authentication with JWT tokens
+Output: feat(auth): implement JWT-based authentication
+```
+
+## Writing Style
+
+Try to explain to the model why things are important in lieu of heavy-handed musty MUSTs. Use theory of mind and try to make the skill general and not super-narrow to specific examples. Start by writing a draft and then look at it with fresh eyes and improve it.
+
+---
+<!-- module: 03-test-cases.md -->
+
+# Test Cases
+
+After writing the skill draft, come up with 2-3 realistic test prompts — the kind of thing a real user would actually say. Share them with the user: [you don't have to use this exact language] "Here are a few test cases I'd like to try. Do these look right, or do you want to add more?" Then run them.
+
+Save test cases to `evals/evals.json`. Don't write assertions yet — just the prompts. You'll draft assertions in the next step while the runs are in progress.
+
+```json
+{
+  "skill_name": "example-skill",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "User's task prompt",
+      "expected_output": "Description of expected result",
+      "files": []
+    }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+See `references/schemas.md` for the full schema (including the `assertions` field, which you'll add later). The JSON schemas are carried in the `json-schemas` mini of this skill.