Use when creating new Prodige skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment - applies TDD methodology to process documentation
Installation
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Use when creating new Prodige skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment - applies TDD methodology to process documentation
Writing Skills for Prodige
Overview
Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.
Prodige skills live in .ai/skills/ — each skill gets its own directory following Prodige's structure. Skills integrate with Prodige's governance system, commands, and runtime tracking.
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 test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill adapts TDD to documentation.
What is a Prodige Skill?
A skill is a reference guide for proven techniques, patterns, or tools within the Prodige workflow. Skills help future agents find and apply effective approaches while maintaining Prodige's governance standards.
Skills are: Reusable techniques, patterns, tools, reference guides integrated with Prodige's system
Skills are NOT: Narratives about how you solved a problem once, or standalone docs disconnected from Prodige commands
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
Integrates with Prodige commands or governance
Don't create for:
One-off solutions
Standard practices well-documented elsewhere
Project-specific conventions (put in .ai/context/ARCHITECTURE.md or .ai/context/DECISIONS.md)
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 (using-git-worktrees, systematic-debugging)
Pattern
Way of thinking about problems (subagent-driven-development, brainstorming)
Reference
API docs, syntax guides, tool documentation (ripgrep, repomap)
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
---
name: skill-name-with-hyphens
description: Use when [specific triggering conditions and symptoms] - include Prodige integration context
---# Skill Name## Overview
What is this? Core principle in 1-2 sentences.
How does it integrate with Prodige's system?
## Integration with Prodige- Which commands invoke this skill?
- Which governance gates does it support?
- Which runtime files does it use/update?
- Which other skills does it depend on?
## 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
Integration examples with Prodige commands
## Quick Reference
Table or bullets for scanning common operations
## Implementation
Inline code for simple patterns
Link to file for heavy reference or reusable tools
Reference Prodige file locations (`.ai/runtime/`, `.ai/context/`)
## Common Mistakes
What goes wrong + fixes
Prodige-specific gotchas
## Red Flags
Never/Always lists
Prodige governance violations to avoid
## Governance Integration Summary (if applicable)
How this skill fits in Prodige's review gate workflow
Skill Discovery Optimization (SDO)
Critical for discovery: Future agents need to FIND your skill in Prodige's .ai/skills/ directory
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.
# ❌ BAD: Summarizes workflow - agents may follow this instead of reading skilldescription:Usewhenexecutingplans-dispatchessubagentpertaskwithcodereviewbetweentasks# ❌ BAD: Too much process detaildescription:UseforTDD-writetestfirst,watchitfail,writeminimalcode,refactor# ✅ GOOD: Just triggering conditions, no workflow summary, includes Prodige contextdescription:Usewhenexecutingimplementationplanswithindependenttasksinthecurrentsession# ✅ GOOD: Triggering conditions only with Prodige integrationdescription:Usewhenimplementationiscomplete,alltestspass,andyouneedtodecidehowtointegratetheworkthroughProdige'sReleaseGate
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)
Include Prodige-specific context (which commands, which gates, which workflow phase)
NEVER summarize the skill's process or workflow
# ❌ BAD: Too abstract, vague, doesn't include when to usedescription:Forasynctesting# ❌ BAD: First persondescription:Icanhelpyouwithasynctestswhenthey'reflaky# ❌ BAD: Mentions technology but skill isn't specific to itdescription:UsewhentestsusesetTimeout/sleepandareflaky# ✅ GOOD: Starts with "Use when", describes problem, no workflowdescription:Usewhentestshaveraceconditions,timingdependencies,orpass/failinconsistently# ✅ GOOD: Technology-specific skill with explicit trigger and Prodige contextdescription:UsewhenstartingfeatureworkinProdigethatneedsisolationfromcurrentworkspace-ensuresanisolatedworkspaceexistsvianativetoolsorgitworktreefallback# ✅ GOOD: Integration skill with clear Prodige contextdescription:Usewhenimplementationiscomplete,alltestspass,andyouneedtodecidehowtointegratethework-guidescompletionofdevelopmentworkthroughProdige'sReleaseGatebypresentingstructuredoptionsformerge,PR,orcleanup
✅ finishing-a-development-branch not branch-completion
✅ using-git-worktrees not worktree-usage
4. Token Efficiency (Critical)
Problem: 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)
Integration skills with Prodige: <800 words (more context needed)
Techniques:
Move details to tool help:
# ❌ 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 --helpfor details.
Use cross-references:
# ❌ 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 subagent-driven-development for workflow.
Compress examples:
# ❌ 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]
Runtime: Reference runtime files (e.g., "Tracks in .ai/runtime/worktrees.json")
Flowchart Usage
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
Integration flows between Prodige components
Never use flowcharts for:
Reference material → Tables, lists
Code examples → Markdown blocks
Linear instructions → Numbered lists
Labels without semantic meaning (step1, helper2)
Prodige-specific flowcharts:
Show integration between commands, skills, and gates
Success criteria: Agent correctly navigates Prodige's governance system and updates all required files
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.
"It's just a Prodige integration update"
Integration changes can break workflows. Test them.
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
Skips Prodige governance step
Hard gate with checklist + verification steps
Soft reminder to "follow governance"
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.
Close Every Loophole Explicitly
Don't just state the rule - forbid specific workarounds:
Bad:
Write code before test? Delete it.
Good:
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
Address "Spirit vs Letter" Arguments
Add foundational principle early:
**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:
| 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:
## 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:
## Hard Gates - Cannot Proceed Without- [ ] Release Gate checklist complete
- [ ] All tests passing
- [ ] CHANGELOG.md updated
- [ ] No unresolved governance violations
**Skipping any item = governance violation. STOP.**
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?
Prodige-specific: Did they skip governance steps? Update wrong files? Ignore gates?
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.
Prodige-specific additions:
Integration section: Which commands, gates, runtime files
Governance section: Which gates this skill supports
Context updates: Which .ai/context/ files to update
Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
REFACTOR: Close Loopholes
Agent found new rationalization? Add explicit counter. Re-test until bulletproof.
Prodige-specific refactoring:
Add missing governance checkpoints
Clarify file location ambiguities (.ai/runtime/ vs .ai/context/)
Strengthen gate integration
Add cross-references to related skills
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:
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.
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.
5+ reps per variant. Single samples lie.
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.
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.
Anti-Patterns
❌ Narrative Example
"In session 2025-10-03, we found empty projectDir caused..."
Why bad: Too specific, not reusable
helper1, helper2, step3, pattern4
Why bad: Labels should have semantic meaning
❌ Disconnected from Prodige (Prodige-specific)
Skill doesn't mention which commands use it, which gates it supports, or which files it updates
Why bad: Agents can't integrate skill with Prodige workflow
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
Prodige-specific: Test governance integration, file updates, gate compliance
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)
Description starts with "Use when..." and includes specific triggers/symptoms
Description includes Prodige integration context (commands, gates, workflow phase)
Description written in third person
Keywords throughout for search (errors, symptoms, tools, Prodige components)
Clear overview with core principle
Integration with Prodige section: Commands, gates, runtime files, dependencies
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
Scans overview (is this relevant? How does it integrate?)
Reads Integration with Prodige (which commands, gates, files?)
Reads patterns (quick reference table)
Loads example (only when implementing)
Optimize for this flow - put searchable terms and Prodige integration context early and often.
Prodige-Specific Integration Patterns
Command Integration
Skills invoked by commands should document the trigger:
## Integration with Prodige**Commands that invoke this skill:**-`/build` - After all implementation tasks complete
-`/parallel` - After parallel agents finish
- Manual invocation when ready to complete work
**Preconditions:**- All tests passing
- Review Gate passed
Governance Gate Integration
Skills that support governance gates should document their role:
## Governance Integration Summary
This skill is the final step in Prodige's governance workflow:
### Context File Integration
Skills that update context should document what and when:
```markdown
## Context Updates
**On successful merge (Option 1):**
- Update `.ai/context/CHANGELOG.md` with merge entry
- Update `.ai/context/DECISIONS.md` if architectural decision made
- Update `.ai/context/ARCHITECTURE.md` if structure changed
**Format:**
```markdown
## [2024-01-15] - Feature: User Authentication
### Changes
- Added JWT authentication middleware
- Implemented login/logout endpoints
## The Bottom Line
**Creating skills IS TDD for process documentation in Prodige.**
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.
**Prodige additions:**
- Integration with commands, gates, and runtime
- Governance compliance verification
- Context and runtime file contracts
- Cross-skill coordination
If you follow TDD for code, follow it for skills. It's the same discipline applied to documentation, with Prodige's governance system ensuring quality and consistency.
## Quick Reference: Prodige Skill Template
```markdown
---
name: skill-name
description: Use when [trigger] - [Prodige integration context]
---
# Skill Name
## Overview
Core principle. Prodige integration summary.
## Integration with Prodige
- Commands: Which invoke this
- Gates: Which this supports
- Runtime: Which files this uses/updates
- Dependencies: Which skills this requires
## When to Use
[Flowchart if non-obvious decision]
Symptoms and use cases
## Core Pattern
Implementation details
## Quick Reference
Table of common operations
## Common Mistakes
What goes wrong + fixes
## Red Flags
Never/Always lists
## Governance Integration Summary (if applicable)
How this fits in review gate workflow
Example: Integration Skill Structure
See finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md for a complete example of:
