| name | loom-skill-authoring |
| description | Maintain Loom-compatible skills. Use when adding, tightening, reviewing, or auditing skill boundaries, activation descriptions, common triggers, templates, references, routing, or anti-rationalization guidance. |
| compatibility | Markdown-native, script-free Loom protocol. |
| metadata | {"skill_kind":"authoring"} |
loom-skill-authoring
Use this skill to author Loom-compatible skills.
Core Dependency
This playbook requires loom-core. If using-loom and the core owner-layer
skills are not installed or preloaded, stop and load/install loom-core instead
of treating this playbook as a substitute for Loom doctrine or record grammar.
What This Skill Owns
- skill activation descriptions
- skill frontmatter and metadata conventions
- skill boundaries and overlap review
- skill review and pressure-scenario validation
- skill directory structure
- reference/template placement
- anti-pattern review for hidden runtimes or vague ownership
- skill-routing and pressure-scenario adaptation from peer skill systems
What Good Loom Skills Do
A good Loom skill:
- has a broad activation description that names ordinary user/task triggers and
owner boundaries
- uses frontmatter metadata consistently with the skill boundary
- owns one subsystem or one coherent capability
- tells the agent what it governs and what it does not
- teaches a practical procedure
- names common rationalizations when agents are likely to skip the discipline
- names red flags that show the skill is being violated
- ends with evidence-backed verification, not a vibe check
- provides references for nuanced judgment
- provides templates when artifact creation is part of the workflow
Pressure-Scenario Validation
When a skill change affects routing, verification, critique, acceptance, closure,
or operator discipline, test the behavior with at least one realistic pressure
scenario when proportional.
Use the smallest honest loop:
- RED: name the prompt-shaped temptation the old or missing guidance would likely
mishandle, such as "skip formalities", "the fix is obvious", "the screenshot
looks fine", or "the child said done".
- GREEN: edit the smallest skill surface that makes the correct Loom route,
owner record, or refusal obvious.
- REFACTOR: remove duplicate prose, hidden runtime assumptions, over-broad
activation, or new owner ambiguity introduced by the fix.
Preserve the scenario in evidence or critique when the ticket needs durable
support. For small wording edits, a written scenario plus structural review may be
enough; do not invent a hidden skill-test harness.
Use This Skill When
- you are adding a new skill
- you are collapsing duplicate skills
- you are tightening a vague skill description
- you are deciding whether a subsystem should exist as its own skill
Do Not Use This Skill When
- the work really belongs to a canonical project record
- the "new skill" is just a one-off task
- you are trying to hide core rules inside a skill that should really be always-on doctrine
Common Rationalizations
- Rationalization: "The skill reads well, so it is done."
Reality: Skill edits change future operator behavior; validation must check activation, boundaries, references, templates, and proportional evidence.
- Rationalization: "This rule can live in the new skill only."
Reality: Always-on doctrine belongs in using-Loom; owner truth belongs in owner records. Skills coordinate behavior without hiding core policy.
- Rationalization: "A broad description means the skill owns all related truth."
Reality: Broad activation improves discovery. Durable truth still routes to the owning Loom layer.
- Rationalization: "The pressure scenario is obvious, so I do not need to write it down."
Reality: Behavior-changing skill edits need a concrete check against the rationalization they are meant to prevent.
Red Flags
- activation is too vague for an agent to know when to load the skill
- the skill duplicates another owner or creates a shadow owner layer
- required references are a bare index instead of immediate versus conditional reads
- templates introduce placeholder IDs, vague completion claims, or hidden runtime assumptions
- verification is only the author's confidence that the prose sounds right
- behavior-changing guidance lacks a pressure scenario, critique, or evidence posture proportional to risk
Verification
Done Means
- the skill has a broad activation description with ordinary triggers, aliases,
and owner boundaries where relevant
- frontmatter names
name, description, compatibility, and appropriate
metadata fields
- the skill states what it owns and what it does not own
- the skill teaches process over reference knowledge
- common rationalizations, red flags, and verification are present when they would
change agent behavior
- references and templates are placed only where they serve the skill boundary
- the skill does not duplicate another owner or create a hidden runtime
Read In This Order
Read immediately for skill authoring:
references/principles.md when deciding whether a skill should exist and
what it should own.
references/structure.md when laying out files, references, and templates.
references/skill-routing-and-pressure-testing.md when adapting peer skills,
designing activation boundaries, or testing skills against rationalizations.
Then read conditionally:
references/anti-patterns.md when checking overlap, hidden runtime
dependency, or vague activation.
references/skill-review.md when a skill changes operator behavior,
discipline, routing, or protocol authority and needs pressure-testing or
critique before acceptance.
templates/simple-skill.md when creating an owner-layer, workflow, support,
shared-grammar, inner-loop, control-plane, entry-doctrine, or authoring skill with a
single coherent boundary.
templates/router-skill.md when creating a workflow coordinator that routes
among multiple owner layers without owning a new truth layer.