| name | skill-creator |
| description | Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. This daymade edition supersedes the official skill-creator plugin — when both appear in the skill list, always use this one. 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. Also use for its three specialized distillations, even when the user never says "skill" — "wrap this session up as a skill" / "把这次 session 做成一个 skill" (wrapper skill for a third-party tool), "mine my chat history for patterns" / "把这次对话沉淀到 skill 里" (conversation mining), and "these are my approved examples, learn what I really want" / "从我认可的样例里提炼我真正的喜好" (artifact-corpus preference distillation). |
| license | Complete terms in LICENSE.txt |
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.
Five standing disciplines apply throughout, because these failure modes ship convincing-looking skills that are wrong:
-
Verify before you write. Every technical assertion that enters the skill (endpoint, parameter, command, version, behavior) must trace to something you executed and observed — in this session or an explicitly approved mined one. Can't verify it right now? Either go verify it, or mark it explicitly ("unverified — from memory"). A skill multiplies whatever it contains: verified knowledge compounds, and so do confidently-stated errors. For knowledge skills (content is mostly facts about an external system — API endpoints, parameters, fields, platform behavior), read references/knowledge-skill-grounding.md for the operational version: the authority ladder (observed behavior > machine-readable contract > exercised production code > official docs > memory), evidence-scope annotation, pre-ship doc-example smoke runs, and the audience/Windows portability checklist. A source-grounding audit once found multiple confident contract claims that contradicted evidence already available to the author (methodology Case 9).
-
Treat "impossible / not supported" as a hypothesis, not a conclusion. When a capability seems blocked (an API error wall, a tool that won't connect, a format that won't open), exhaust the observation paths — the UI's own network traffic, an alternative channel, a different documented identifier — before writing "the platform doesn't support this" into a skill. Observed behavior outranks speculative request shapes.
-
Stand on the field's shoulders — retrieve the domain's established best-practices into context BY DEFAULT, before authoring or optimizing a skill's methodology. A skill's methodology is only as good as the knowledge in your context window, not the knowledge latent in your weights: pretraining is lossy, goes stale, and often is not even activated unless the canonical sources are actually pulled in. So the quality ceiling of what you write is your training data + the user's input — unless you deliberately retrieve the subject domain's real prior art. Do it: WebSearch the field's canonical theory / standards / methods, and read any bundled or installed skill in that domain, then fold the load-bearing principles into the skill with attribution. This is a different axis from "Prior Art Research" below — that finds tools/infrastructure to reuse; this grounds the quality of the methodology itself in the discipline's accumulated science. Make it the default action, not something you wait to be asked for: briefly tell the user which field you're pulling from and let them say "skip," but never ship a methodology capped by your memory plus their prompt when 40 years of the field's public work is one search away. Examples: a data-visualization skill must absorb Cleveland & McGill's graphical-perception ranking and Bertin's visual variables (position/length beat color beat text — measured, not aesthetic); a date/time skill must surface the mature libraries and their canonical pitfalls; a persuasion/negotiation skill must retrieve the established frameworks rather than reinvent them from memory. If the canonical knowledge lives only in your weights and never enters context, you are guessing where you could be citing.
-
Preserve before you compress an existing skill. Updating an existing skill is a migration, not a blank-page rewrite. Before the first edit, capture the complete old bundle with the audit tool's snapshot command, or reconstruct it from an explicit Git ref; an arbitrary copy plus a provenance label is not a baseline. Inventory runtime capabilities, trigger contexts, interfaces, references, and eval coverage. Progressive disclosure and concision authorize moving or deduplicating content; they do not authorize silently deleting behavior. After editing, run scripts/audit_skill_regression.py and classify every unmatched old unit. A runtime contract that survives only in evals/, tests, or an unlinked reference is still lost. Do not call the update complete while any candidate is unclassified or any true gap remains unfixed.
-
A corpus-distilled skill's completeness cannot be self-audited — get an independent pass. When a skill is built by distilling a large source corpus (docs, transcripts, prior research), the author's "it's complete now" judgment runs on the same compression model that dropped the content in the first place, so self-review — including your own grep — systematically misses the same-type gaps. Discipline #4's regression gate covers editing an existing skill; this covers building a new one from a corpus. Before shipping, run an independent completeness audit: a fresh subagent that reads all the source material PLUS the finished skill and adversarially lists what is absent or materially thinner, with source citations, ranked by load-bearingness. Completeness has an objective anchor (is it in the sources?), which is exactly why a subagent is the right tool here — unlike "AI taste," which it cannot judge (so this does not contradict "never sub-agent AI-slop detection"). Evidence: in one build the author declared "complete" twice and both times more surfaced; the independent audit then found 15 further genuine gaps, including a load-bearing operational mechanism the skill kept referencing but never showed how to do. (methodology Case 11)
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.
First: coexistence check (official skill-creator plugin)
Before anything else, run one quick check (a single grep, no output needed on the common path): does ${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR:-~/.claude}/plugins/installed_plugins.json contain "skill-creator@claude-plugins-official"?
- Not present (the common case): do nothing — do not install anything, do not mention this section to the user. Proceed with the engagement.
- Present: the official plugin's skill-creator and this edition now sit in the skill list with near-identical descriptions, so future sessions will route between them at random. Tell the user this in one or two sentences, then offer (never act without their consent):
- Recommended — run
scripts/setup_supersede_hook.sh install. It copies a small self-checking SessionStart hook into their Claude config and registers it in settings.json (with a backup), so every future session deterministically routes skill work to this edition. Reversible with scripts/setup_supersede_hook.sh uninstall; the official plugin stays fully usable when asked for by name. On machines without the official plugin the installer refuses to install anything, so it can never leave a useless hook behind.
- Alternative —
claude plugin disable skill-creator@claude-plugins-official (reversible with enable), which removes the ambiguity by taking the official entry out of the skill list entirely.
If the hook is already installed (scripts/setup_supersede_hook.sh status shows the SessionStart entry as present), skip all of this silently.
The same machinery is available for skills the user creates: when their skill deliberately overlaps an installed one, generate them a kit with scripts/generate_supersede_kit.py — see "Coexistence & Precedence" under Prior Art Research and references/skill-precedence-and-coexistence.md.
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.
Using AskUserQuestion (Critical — Read This)
Use the AskUserQuestion tool aggressively at every decision point. Do not ask open-ended text questions in conversation when structured choices exist. This is the single biggest UX improvement you can make — users juggle multiple windows and may not have looked at this conversation in 20 minutes.
Every AskUserQuestion MUST follow this structure:
- Re-ground: State the skill name, current phase, and what just happened (1-2 sentences). The user may have context-switched away.
- Simplify: Explain the decision in plain language. No function names or internal jargon. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
- Recommend: Lead with your recommendation and a one-line reason why. If options involve effort, show both scales:
(human: ~X min / Claude: ~Y min).
- Options: Provide 2-4 concrete, lettered choices. Each option should be a clear action, not an abstract concept.
Rules:
- One decision per question — never batch unrelated choices
- Provide an escape hatch ("Other" is always implicit in AskUserQuestion)
- Accept the user's choice — nudge on tradeoffs but never refuse to proceed
- Skip the question if there's an obvious answer with no tradeoffs (just state what you'll do)
Creating a skill
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.
Source inventory — always before drafting, with consent boundaries. Inventory the live conversation and existing docs/skills that overlap (see Prior Art Research below). Earlier local session JSONL files are a separate private source: do not open or parse them unless the user explicitly asks to mine history or affirmatively approves that source after you explain what will be read. If approved, fold only relevant prior sessions in through the conversation-mining workflow's redacted extraction; never load raw transcripts into your own context. If not approved, continue from the live conversation and existing project sources without treating the missing history as a blocker.
When mining a conversation (or session transcripts), inventory two kinds of assets — they land in different places. Knowledge — endpoints, parameters, pitfalls, decision rules — becomes SKILL.md guidance or references/. Code the session had to write — helper scripts, injected snippets, renderers, one-off templates — is a scripts/ candidate: if this session wrote it, the next invocation will have to rewrite it, so parameterize it, sanitize it, and bundle it. A prior distillation captured polished prose but omitted the reusable helpers; the general lesson is to keep both knowledge→references and code→scripts channels in frame.
When the source material is past session transcripts (the JSONL files under the Claude Code projects directory) rather than the live conversation, do not load them into your own context — a large transcript can exhaust the window and lose the session. Delegate extraction to subagents instead, with explicit instructions to parse line-by-line with a script, truncate every extracted field, and return only a distilled lessons list — the raw transcript never enters the main context.
First, resolve which DIRECTION this is — before the four questions below. The request may be one of several opposite things: build a NEW skill / edit an EXISTING skill / optimize skill-creator itself / or it's not-a-skill-at-all (a one-off task). Guessing wrong wastes the whole session — the research you'd do for "new skill" is the wrong research for "optimize the meta-tool." When the phrasing is ambiguous (e.g. "make me a skill" while pointing at skill-creator's own path), one AskUserQuestion here costs 30 seconds. The wrapper-skill fork below is one special case of this; the direction check is general.
- What should this skill enable Claude to do?
- When should this skill trigger? (what user phrases/contexts)
- What's the expected output format?
- 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, taste-calibrated reports) often can't use assertions — but "no assertions" is not "no verification". Their verification paths, in order of cost:
- Historical-task replay: re-run one real prompt the skill has served before, old vs new skill, and compare outputs against the specific rules that changed ("does the new output actually follow the tokens / title grammar this update introduced?"). Cheap, catches "the rule was written but nothing reads it".
- Production-as-eval: acknowledge that the real test is the user's next actual use — then make the loop explicit: every user correction afterward is an incident to fold back (the skill's own "迭代/活文档" section), every approval is corpus material. A taste skill that ships without this write-back habit doesn't improve; one that has it converges without ever running a formal eval.
- Render + human review for visual outputs (the skill's own visual-QA gates), never a grep assertion pretending to measure aesthetics.
Suggest the appropriate default based on the skill type, but let the user decide.
After extracting answers from conversation history (or asking questions 1-3), use AskUserQuestion to confirm the skill type and testing strategy:
Creating skill "[name]" — here's what I understand so far:
- Purpose: [1-sentence summary]
- Triggers on: [key phrases]
- Output: [format]
RECOMMENDATION: [Objective/Subjective/Hybrid] skill → [suggested testing approach]
Options:
A) Objective output (files, code, data) — set up automated test cases (Recommended if output is verifiable)
B) Subjective output (writing, design) — qualitative human review only
C) Hybrid — automated checks for structure, human review for quality
D) Skip testing for now — just build the skill and iterate by feel
This upfront classification drives the entire evaluation strategy downstream. Get it right here to avoid wasted effort later.
Specialized Workflow: Wrapper Skills for Third-Party CLI Tools
Before committing to the generic skill-creation flow, check whether the session that led up to this point actually calls for the wrapper skill workflow instead. A wrapper skill is a companion that installs, configures, diagnoses, and repairs a pre-existing third-party CLI tool or skill package — code that someone else wrote and that the user has just spent a session getting to work on their machine.
Signals this applies (any two together are enough):
- The user has been installing a tool in the current conversation — downloading a
.zip, running npx / pip install / brew install, dealing with an official installer.
- The session has produced real, concrete error messages and the user and Claude have worked out concrete fixes for them (edited files, added flags, bypassed aliases).
- The user says something like "wrap this up as a skill", "save this as a wrapper skill", "so other people don't have to go through this again", "把这次 session 做成一个 skill".
- The user explicitly mentions a third-party tool by name and wants other agents or other people to be able to use it without the learning curve they just paid.
Signals it does not apply (use the generic workflow above instead):
- The user wants a skill for something they're going to write from scratch.
- The session was smooth — no real friction to capture.
- The skill would wrap a service the user owns or controls (it's their code; edit the source instead of wrapping it).
- The "tool" is actually a methodology or workflow that doesn't involve installing any binary or package.
When the wrapper skill workflow applies, do not continue reading the sections below. Jump to workflows/wrapper-skill/workflow.md and follow that workflow end-to-end. It is a retrospective distillation workflow — its job is to mine the current conversation for the install flow, the bugs that were fixed, and the design decisions that were made, and to turn that mining output into a complete, self-contained wrapper skill that another user can install and benefit from without reliving the debugging session.
The wrapper skill workflow has its own architecture contract, code templates, and verification protocol — it does not share test-case infrastructure with the generic workflow, because its output is a user's install state rather than a file that can be easily asserted on. The canonical reference implementation is the ima-copilot skill (at the root of the daymade/claude-code-skills repository — a bare relative link here already broke once when this skill moved into a suite, exactly as the cross-skill-reference rule below warns), a wrapper around the Tencent IMA skill distilled from a real session using this exact workflow.
Specialized Workflow: Enrich a Skill from Conversation History
Before committing to the generic skill-creation flow, check whether the session is actually asking to distill past conversations into a skill. This is useful when the user has been debugging, designing, or exploring a topic over multiple Claude Code / Codex sessions and wants to turn the accumulated know-how into reusable references/.
Signals this applies (any one is enough):
- The user says something like "mine my chat history for patterns", "turn this conversation into a skill reference", "distill what we learned into the skill", "enrich this skill from my conversations", or "把这次对话沉淀到 skill 里".
- The session is explicitly about extracting lessons from a recent multi-turn debugging or design session.
- The user wants to add a
references/ file to an existing skill based on real conversations they have already had.
- The target skill already exists, and the goal is to enrich it with conversation-mined knowledge rather than build it from scratch.
Signals it does not apply (use the generic workflow above instead):
- The user is creating a brand-new skill from a single prompt or idea.
- The user wants a wrapper around a third-party CLI tool they just installed (use the wrapper-skill workflow above).
- There is no local conversation history to mine and no transcript exports to process.
- The mined content is one-time personal notes that should live in
memory/ rather than a reusable reference file.
- The source material is a batch of finished artifacts the user has endorsed, rather than dialogue — use the artifact-corpus-distillation workflow below.
When the conversation-mining workflow applies, do not continue reading the generic sections below. Jump to workflows/conversation-mining/workflow.md and follow that workflow end-to-end. It is a retrospective distillation workflow: it discovers local Claude Code project sessions, Codex transcripts, and command histories, redacts them, partitions them into agent-sized chunks, runs mining agents, and promotes the resulting candidate references into the target skill's references/ after validation.
The conversation-mining workflow has its own architecture contract, agent prompts, templates, and verification protocol. It is the canonical way to turn real conversation history into a skill's reusable knowledge base.
Specialized Workflow: Distill User Preferences from an Approved-Artifact Corpus
Before committing to the generic flow, check whether the session is asking to extract the user's real preferences from a batch of finished artifacts they have endorsed — approved HTML report pages, generated documents, designs. This is the third distillation source, distinct from the two above: the material is products, not conversations, and the output is taste made executable (explicit principles, quantified parameters, vocabulary), not knowledge or install fixes.
Signals this applies (any one is enough):
- The user lists finished artifacts and says "这些都是我认可的样例" / "你来学到底什么是我想要的" / "extract my preferences from these approved examples".
- A taste-calibration skill (report generator, doc styler, deck builder) has an approved-sample corpus that keeps growing, and the user asks to make the skill learn from it rather than just index it.
- The user complains that a previous update "只加了示例" — only cataloged samples without changing skill behavior.
Signals it does not apply: the source material is dialogue/corrections rather than endorsed products (use conversation-mining); the samples are not personally approved by the user (approval is the admission gate — ask first).
When it applies, jump to workflows/artifact-corpus-distillation/workflow.md. Its core discipline, which also applies any time you add material to an existing skill: cataloging ≠ distillation — registering a sample in a corpus table changes nothing about the skill's next run; ask of every addition "does this change a decision rule?", and do not declare a distillation session done while the answer is no for everything written (methodology Case 15). The workflow's spine: script-extracted quantitative comparison across ALL artifacts (≥3-artifact threshold per pattern, checked exception lists per claimed constant) → layered induction with evidence anchors → write to the decision-rule layer (separating invariants from register-dependent variables) → independent completeness audit (standing discipline #5) → regression audit.
Prior Art Research (Do Not Skip)
The user's private methodology — their domain rules, workflow decisions, competitive edge — is what makes a skill valuable. No public repo can provide that. But the user shouldn't waste time reinventing infrastructure (API clients, auth flows, rate limiting) when mature tools exist. Prior art research finds building blocks for the infrastructure layer so the skill can focus on encoding the user's unique methodology.
Two axes, don't conflate them. This section sources the infrastructure layer (tools / MCPs / libraries / existing skills to reuse). The methodology layer has two inputs of its own: the user's private edge (theirs alone, un-retrievable) and the domain's established best-practices / science, which you retrieve into context by default per standing discipline #3. Finding the right tool does not discharge the second — a viz skill that adopts a charting library but never absorbs Cleveland/Bertin is still capped at your pretraining. Do both.
Search these channels in order (use subagents for 4-8 in parallel):
| Priority | Channel | What to search | How |
|---|
| 1 | Conversation history | User's proven workflows, verified API patterns, corrections made during debugging | Grep recent conversations for the service/API name |
| 2 | Local documents & SOPs | User's private methodology, runbooks, existing skills | Search project directory, ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md, ~/.claude/references/ |
| 3 | Installed plugins & MCPs | Already-integrated tools | Check ~/.claude/plugins/, parse installed_plugins.json; check ~/.claude.json for configured MCP servers |
| 4 | skills.sh | Community skills | WebFetch https://skills.sh/?q=<keyword> |
| 5 | Anthropic official plugins | Official/partner plugins | WebFetch https://github.com/anthropics/claude-plugins-official/tree/main/plugins and external_plugins directory |
| 6 | MCP servers on GitHub | Existing MCP servers for the same API | WebSearch "<service-name> MCP server site:github.com" |
| 7 | Official API docs | The target service's own documentation | WebSearch "<service-name> API documentation" or WebFetch the docs URL |
| 8 | npm / PyPI | SDK or CLI packages | npm search <keyword> or curl https://pypi.org/pypi/<name>/json |
Channels 1-3 surface the user's own proven patterns and existing integrations. Channels 4-8 find public infrastructure. The user's private SOP always takes precedence — public tools are building blocks, not replacements. In competitive domains (finance, trading, proprietary operations), the valuable methodology will never be public.
Bias toward merge/extend over create-new, and sweep EVERY skill root — not just ~/.claude. When channels 1-3 turn up an existing skill that overlaps the requested domain, the usual right move is to extend or merge into it (one real "new skill" task became "make the existing extractor the extract-phase of the new archiver"), not to ship a parallel skill that competes for the same triggers — two overlapping skills fight over triggering and confuse users. When searching, enumerate the real install roots: the skill source repos (e.g. a claude-code-skills checkout and any -pro sibling), other agents' skill dirs (~/.codex/skills, ~/.agents/skills), per-profile skill dirs, and ~/Downloads — a skill the user already installed somewhere is the strongest prior art there is.
If a public MCP server or skill is found, clone it and verify — don't trust the README:
- Read the actual source code — many projects have polished READMEs on hollow codebases
- Verify auth method — does it match how the API actually authenticates? (X-Api-Key headers vs Bearer vs OAuth — many get this wrong)
- Check test coverage — zero tests = prototype, not production-grade
- Check maintenance — last commit date, open issue count, response to bug reports
- Check environment compatibility — proxy/network assumptions, hardcoded DNS/IPs, region locks
- Check license — MIT/Apache is fine; GPL/SSPL may conflict with proprietary use
- Check dependency weight — huge dependency trees create conflict and security surface
Decision matrix:
| Finding | Action |
|---|
| Mature MCP/SDK handles the infrastructure | Adopt it, build on top — install the MCP, then build the skill as a workflow layer encoding the user's methodology |
| Partial MCP or SDK exists | Extend — use for infrastructure, fill gaps in the skill |
| Public skill covers the same domain | Use for structural inspiration only — public skills in competitive domains are generic by definition. The user's edge is their private SOP |
| Complementary skill exists that provides a sub-capability of what you're building | Bundle it — copy the complementary skill's self-contained assets into your bundle and wire them up. Do NOT rely on the user having it pre-installed. See "Complementary Skills" below |
| Nothing public exists | Build from scratch — validate API access patterns work (auth, endpoints, proxy) before writing the full skill |
| Integration cost > build cost | Build it — a 2-hour custom implementation you own beats a "mature" tool with integration friction and upstream risk |
| User deliberately supersedes an installed skill (fork, hardened edition) | Ship it with a supersede kit — see "Coexistence & Precedence" below |
Coexistence & Precedence (deliberate overlap)
Merging into the existing skill is the default fix for overlap (above). But when the user deliberately ships a skill that overlaps an installed one — a fork of an official plugin, a hardened in-house edition — the two entries will sit in the skill list with similar descriptions and Claude will route between them at random. Resolve it, in escalating order: rename if the overlap is accidental; add a description tiebreaker ("supersedes X — when both appear, always use this one"); and for distributed forks, stamp a conditional supersede kit into the skill with scripts/generate_supersede_kit.py — a consent-based SessionStart routing hook that only ever installs on machines where the competitor is actually present, refuses to install elsewhere, and self-disables if either side disappears. Mechanics, decision table, SKILL.md sample wording, and sandbox verification: references/skill-precedence-and-coexistence.md. This skill dogfoods the same kit against the official skill-creator plugin (see "First: coexistence check" at the top).
The more common case: your new skill silently loses the trigger to the installed population, without any deliberate fork. A skill's domain (image generation, PDF handling, dashboards) is often already crowded with several installed skills, and a fresh skill can lose auto-routing to all of them. So verify triggering early — the build isn't done when the content is good. After a draft exists, fire a few realistic queries through claude -p and check the new skill actually WINS; if it doesn't, name the specific competitor it lost to (different queries often lose to different skills). Then know two things: (1) prose can't always win a crowded slot — the resolution ladder is rename → description tiebreaker/SUPERSEDES → manual invocation → SessionStart routing hook (structural; modifies global config, so requires the user's explicit consent, same discipline as --no-verify); and (2) the fix depends on who authored the competitor — competitors that are third-party → accept manual invocation or a routing hook; competitors that are your own → merge/consolidate them into one, don't keep two of your skills fighting for the same trigger. (The full resolution ladder lives in references/skill-precedence-and-coexistence.md — that file is the SSOT; the summaries here and above are pointers, don't extend them independently.) Documenting the chosen path (e.g. an "Activation" note saying "invoke manually, competitors are third-party") stops the next session from re-litigating it. (methodology Case 13)
Complementary Skills (bundle, don't depend)
When building a skill that touches a domain with an existing complementary skill, you have two choices:
- Depend on it being installed: fragile — the user may not have it, or may have a different version. Every missing-dependency failure traces back to this choice.
- Bundle it: copy the complementary skill's self-contained assets (scripts, templates, reference docs) into your own bundle, and wire them up so your skill works standalone.
Rule: if a sub-capability your skill needs is provided by another installable skill, bundle it. This is especially important for:
- Statusline / UI rendering scripts (e.g.,
statusline-generator's generate_statusline.sh)
- Shared validation / sanitization scripts
- Common data transformation utilities
Example: claude-switch-models-setup manages multiple Claude Code profiles. Each profile needs a statusline. The statusline-generator skill provides generate_statusline.sh. Rather than depending on the user running statusline-generator first, the profile setup skill bundles statusline.sh and wires it into each new profile during claude-profiles-init. The two skills remain independently useful, but the wrapper skill works standalone.
Anti-pattern: writing "run other-skill's installer first" in your SKILL.md. That pushes the dependency to the user and creates a fragile install order. Bundle instead.
After research completes, present findings via AskUserQuestion:
Research complete for "[skill-name]". Here's what I found:
[1-2 sentence summary of what exists publicly]
RECOMMENDATION: [ADOPT / EXTEND / BUILD] because [one-line reason]
Options:
A) Adopt [tool/MCP X] for infrastructure, build methodology layer on top (Recommended)
B) Extend [partial tool Y] — use what works, fill gaps in the skill
C) Build from scratch — nothing found matches well enough
D) Show me the detailed findings before I decide
When in doubt, bias toward adopting mature infrastructure for the plumbing layer and building custom logic for the methodology layer — that's where the value lives.
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 :)
Skill Writing Guide
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)
YAML Frontmatter Reference
All frontmatter fields except description are optional. Configure skill behavior using these fields between --- markers:
---
name: my-skill
description: What this skill does and when to use it. Use when...
context: fork
agent: general-purpose
argument-hint: "[topic]"
---
| Field | Required | Description |
|---|
name | No | Display name for the skill. If omitted, uses the directory name. Lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens only (max 64 characters). |
description | Recommended | What the skill does and when to use it. Claude uses this to decide when to apply the skill. If omitted, uses the first paragraph of markdown content. |
context | No | Set to fork to run in a forked subagent context. See "Inline vs Fork: Critical Decision" below — choosing wrong breaks your skill. |
agent | No | Which subagent type to use when context: fork is set. Options: Explore, Plan, general-purpose, or custom agents from .claude/agents/. Default: general-purpose. |
disable-model-invocation | No | Set to true to prevent Claude from automatically loading this skill. Use for workflows you want to trigger manually with /name. Default: false. |
user-invocable | No | Set to false to hide from the / menu. Use for background knowledge users shouldn't invoke directly. Default: true. |
allowed-tools | No | Pre-approved tools list. Recommendation: Do NOT set this field. Omitting it gives the skill full tool access governed by the user's permission settings. Setting it restricts the skill's capabilities unnecessarily. |
model | No | Model to use when this skill is active. |
argument-hint | No | Hint shown during autocomplete to indicate expected arguments. Example: [issue-number] or [filename] [format]. |
hooks | No | Hooks scoped to this skill's lifecycle. Example: hooks: { pre-invoke: [{ command: "echo Starting" }] }. See Claude Code Hooks documentation. |
Special placeholder: $ARGUMENTS in skill content is replaced with text the user provides after the skill name. For example, /deep-research quantum computing replaces $ARGUMENTS with quantum computing.
Inline vs Fork: Critical Decision
This is the most important architectural decision when designing a skill. Choosing wrong will silently break your skill's core capabilities.
CRITICAL CONSTRAINT: Subagents cannot spawn other subagents. A skill running with context: fork (as a subagent) CANNOT:
- Use the Task tool to spawn parallel exploration agents
- Use the Skill tool to invoke other skills
- Orchestrate any multi-agent workflow
Decision guide:
| Your skill needs to... | Use | Why |
|---|
| Orchestrate parallel agents (Task tool) | Inline (no context) | Subagents can't spawn subagents |
| Call other skills (Skill tool) | Inline (no context) | Subagents can't invoke skills |
| Run Bash commands for external CLIs | Inline (no context) | Full tool access in main context |
| Perform a single focused task (research, analysis) | Fork (context: fork) | Isolated context, clean execution |
| Provide reference knowledge (coding conventions) | Inline (no context) | Guidelines enrich main conversation |
| Be callable BY other skills | Fork (context: fork) | Must be a subagent to be spawned |
Example: Orchestrator skill (MUST be inline):
---
name: product-analysis
description: Multi-path parallel product analysis with cross-model synthesis
---
1. Auto-detect available tools (which codex, etc.)
2. Launch 3-5 Task agents in parallel (Explore subagents)
3. Optionally invoke /competitors-analysis via Skill tool
4. Synthesize all results
Example: Specialist skill (fork is correct):
---
name: deep-research
description: Research a topic thoroughly using multiple sources
context: fork
agent: Explore
---
Research $ARGUMENTS thoroughly:
1. Find relevant files using Glob and Grep
2. Read and analyze the code
3. Summarize findings with specific file references
Example: Reference skill (inline, no task):
---
name: api-conventions
description: API design patterns for this codebase
---
When writing API endpoints:
- Use RESTful naming conventions
- Return consistent error formats
Composable Skill Design (Orthogonality)
Skills should be orthogonal: each skill handles one concern, and they combine through composition.
Pattern: Orchestrator (inline) calls Specialist (fork)
product-analysis (inline, orchestrator)
├─ Task agents for parallel exploration
├─ Skill('competitors-analysis', 'X') → fork subagent
└─ Synthesizes all results
competitors-analysis (fork, specialist)
└─ Single focused task: analyze one competitor codebase
Rules for composability:
- The caller must be inline (no
context: fork) to use Task/Skill tools
- The callee should use
context: fork to run in isolated subagent context
- Each skill has a single responsibility — don't mix orchestration with execution
- Share methodology via references (e.g., checklists, templates), not by duplicating code
Pipeline Handoff (Sequential Skill Chaining)
Beyond orchestrator/specialist composition, skills often form sequential pipelines where one skill's output is the next skill's input. Each skill should proactively suggest the logical next step after completing its work.
Pattern: "Next Step" section at the end of SKILL.md
## Next Step: [Action Description]
After [this skill completes], suggest the natural next skill:
\```
[Summary of what was just accomplished].
Options:
A) [Next skill] — [one-line reason] (Recommended)
B) [Alternative skill] — [when this is better]
C) No thanks — [the current output is sufficient]
\```
Real-world pipeline examples:
youtube-downloader → asr-transcribe-to-text → transcript-fixer → meeting-minutes-taker → pdf-creator
deep-research → fact-checker → ppt-creator
doc-to-markdown → docs-cleaner
claude-code-history-files-finder → continue-claude-work
Rules for pipeline handoff:
- Every handoff is opt-in via AskUserQuestion — never auto-invoke the next skill without asking
- Suggest only when the output naturally feeds into another skill — don't force connections
- Include a "No thanks" option — the user may not need the full pipeline
- The suggestion should explain why the next step helps (e.g., "ASR output typically contains recognition errors")
- Keep it to 1-2 recommendations max — too many choices cause decision fatigue
When to add a handoff: Ask "does this skill's output commonly become another skill's input?" If yes, add a "Next Step" section. If the connection is rare or forced, don't add one.
Anti-pattern: Chaining skills that don't share a natural data flow. pdf-creator → youtube-downloader makes no sense. The pipeline must follow the user's actual workflow.
Auto-Detection Over Manual Flags
Never add manual flags for capabilities that can be auto-detected. Instead of requiring users to pass --with-codex or --verbose, detect capabilities at runtime:
# Good: Auto-detect and inform
Step 0: Check available tools
- `which codex` → If found, inform user and enable cross-model analysis
- `ls package.json` → If found, tailor prompts for Node.js project
- `which docker` → If found, enable container-based execution
# Bad: Manual flags
argument-hint: [scope] [--with-codex] [--docker] [--verbose]
Principle: Capabilities auto-detect, user decides scope. A skill should discover what it CAN do and act accordingly, not require users to remember what tools are installed.
Invocation Control
| Frontmatter | You can invoke | Claude can invoke | Subagents can use |
|---|
| (default) | Yes | Yes | No (runs inline) |
context: fork | Yes | Yes | Yes |
disable-model-invocation: true | Yes | No | No |
context: fork + disable-model-invocation: true | Yes | No | Yes (when explicitly delegated) |
Progressive Disclosure
Skills use a three-level loading system:
- Metadata (name + description) - Always in context (~100 words)
- SKILL.md body - In context whenever skill triggers
- Bundled resources - As needed (unlimited, scripts can execute without loading)
Key patterns:
- SKILL.md length should be driven by information density, not a line count target. A 600-line skill with no filler is better than a 200-line skill that omits critical knowledge and forces the model to guess. If the skill is getting long, ask: "Is every section earning its keep?" If yes, keep it. If sections are padded or explain things Claude already knows, trim those — not the useful content. When a skill genuinely covers many domains, split into references by domain rather than artificially cramming everything into a short main file.
- For an existing skill, progressive disclosure is a relocation strategy, not a deletion heuristic. The old runtime contract must remain reachable from SKILL.md in the packaged bundle; a trigger query, test assertion, changelog entry, or reviewer memory is not a runtime replacement.
- 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:
## 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):
## Commit message format
**Example 1:**
Input: Added user authentication with JWT tokens
Output: feat(auth): implement JWT-based authentication
Usability patterns worth building into a skill - These four structural elements repeatedly turned a "works but confusing" skill into one users could actually drive — they were the concrete enhancements that made a heavily-used skill usable, so reach for them when a skill has modes, runs commands, or can be re-run:
- Entry decision-tree: if the skill has multiple modes, open with a tiny "user said X → use mode Y" map so the model routes correctly instead of guessing.
- Expected-output block after each command: show "what you should see" right after a command, so the model (and the user) can tell real success from silent failure.
- Troubleshooting section: enumerate the known failure modes and their fixes — the single most valuable section for a skill others will run on machines you can't see.
- Step-0 idempotency guard: if re-running could redo finished work, open with a cheap "is this already done?" check before doing anything expensive.
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.
Dates and Version References
Keep factual dates — they tell readers when information was verified. A skill about Suno v5.5 should say "Suno v5.5 (March 2026)" because without the date, future readers can't judge if the information is still current. Removing dates makes things worse, not better.
What to avoid is conditional logic based on dates ("if before August 2025, use the old API") — that becomes wrong the moment the date passes and nobody updates it.
Rules:
- Release dates, "last verified" dates: Keep them. They're reference points, not expiration dates
- Pricing, rankings, legal status: Include but mark as volatile ("~$0.035/gen as of last check") so readers know to re-verify
- "Before X date do Y, after X date do Z": Don't write this. Pick the current method and optionally document the old one in a collapsed/deprecated section
Bundled Resources
Scripts (scripts/)
Executable code (Python/Bash/etc.) for tasks that require deterministic reliability or are repeatedly rewritten.
- When to include: When the same code is being rewritten repeatedly or deterministic reliability is needed
- Example:
scripts/rotate_pdf.py for PDF rotation tasks
- Benefits: Token efficient, deterministic, may be executed without loading into context
- Note: Scripts may still need to be read by Claude for patching or environment-specific adjustments
- User-mutable data lives outside the bundle: if a script accumulates user data (correction dictionaries, learned preferences, caches), store it under a stable home-relative directory (e.g.
~/.<skill-name>/) with its own backup — never inside the skill directory. Skill installs are wiped and re-created on every update and suite migration; a home-relative store survives them untouched. This is how a dictionary-accumulating skill survived a full suite migration with zero user data loss
References (references/)
Documentation and reference material intended to be loaded as needed into context to inform Claude's process and thinking.
- When to include: For documentation that Claude should reference while working
- Examples:
references/finance.md for financial schemas, references/mnda.md for company NDA template
- Use cases: Database schemas, API documentation, domain knowledge, company policies, detailed workflow guides
- Benefits: Keeps SKILL.md lean, loaded only when Claude determines it's needed
- Best practice: If files are large (>10k words), include grep search patterns in SKILL.md
- Avoid duplication: Information should live in either SKILL.md or references files, not both
Assets (assets/)
Files not intended to be loaded into context, but rather used within the output Claude produces.
- When to include: When the skill needs files that will be used in the final output
- Examples:
assets/logo.png for brand assets, assets/slides.pptx for PowerPoint templates
- Use cases: Templates, images, icons, boilerplate code, fonts, sample documents
Privacy and Path References
CRITICAL: Skills intended for public distribution must not contain user-specific or company-specific information:
- Forbidden: Absolute paths to user directories (for example, user home directories)
- Forbidden: Personal usernames, company names, product names
- Forbidden: Hardcoded skill installation paths like
~/.claude/skills/
- Allowed: Relative paths within the skill bundle (
scripts/example.py, references/guide.md)
- Allowed: Standard placeholders (
<workspace>/project, <user>, <organization>)
- Carve-outs (a validator implementing the Forbidden list literally would flag this very skill — misfiring on healthy input is worse than missing): the publisher's own name/brand when a supersede tiebreaker or attribution requires naming it; install paths like
~/.claude/skills/ when the passage is about those paths (teaching material, not a hardcoded dependency)
Cross-skill references: a bare relative path always means "inside this skill's own bundle" — validators and readers both treat it that way, so a bare path pointing at another skill's file fails validation and misleads readers. When pointing at another skill, name the owner in prose ("marketplace-dev's cache-and-source-patterns reference") and invoke skills by their namespaced name (/suite-name:skill-name, not a bare /skill-name). Bare cross-references break silently when skills move between suites — one suite migration left 21 broken cross-references across two cleanup passes because of this.
Versioning
CRITICAL: Skills should NOT contain version history or version numbers in SKILL.md:
- Forbidden: Version sections (
## Version, ## Changelog) in SKILL.md
- Correct location: Skill versions are tracked in marketplace.json under
plugins[].version
- Rationale: Marketplace infrastructure manages versioning; SKILL.md should be timeless content
Reference File Naming
Filenames must be self-explanatory without reading contents.
Pattern: <content-type>_<specificity>.md
Examples:
- Bad:
commands.md, cli_usage.md, reference.md
- Good:
script_parameters.md, api_endpoints.md, database_schema.md
Test: Can someone understand the file's contents from the name alone?
Two carve-outs: hyphenated names are as good as underscored ones (the separator was never the point — self-explanation is); and files inside a named workflow directory (workflows/<name>/workflow.md, patterns.md) are directory-qualified — the directory supplies the specificity, and renaming them would break the parallel structure across workflows.
Skill Creation Best Practice
Anthropic has written skill authoring best practices — retrieve it before you create or update any skills: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/agent-skills/best-practices.md
Development Methodology Reference
Also read references/skill-development-methodology.md before starting — it covers the full 8-phase development process with prior art research, counter review, and real failure case studies. The two references are complementary: the Anthropic doc covers principles, the methodology covers process.
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. Present them via AskUserQuestion:
Skill draft is ready. Here are [N] test cases I'd like to run:
1. "[test prompt 1]" — tests [what aspect]
2. "[test prompt 2]" — tests [what aspect]
3. "[test prompt 3]" — tests [what aspect]
Each test runs the skill + a baseline (no skill) for comparison.
Estimated time: ~[X] minutes total.
RECOMMENDATION: Run all [N] test cases now.
Options:
A) Run all test cases (Recommended)
B) Run test cases, but let me modify them first
C) Add more test cases before running
D) Skip testing — the skill looks good enough to ship
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.
{
"skill_name": "example-skill",
"evals": [
{
"id": 1,
"prompt": "User's task prompt",
"expected_output": "Description of expected result",
"files": []
}
]
}
See references/eval_pipeline_schemas.md for the full schema (including the assertions field, which you'll add later).
Running and evaluating test cases
This section is one continuous sequence — don't stop partway through. Do NOT use /skill-test or any other testing skill.
Put results in <skill-name>-workspace/ as a sibling to the skill directory. Within the workspace, organize results by iteration (iteration-1/, iteration-2/, etc.) and within that, each test case gets a directory (eval-0/, eval-1/, etc.). Don't create all of this upfront — just create directories as you go.
Step 1: Spawn all runs (with-skill AND baseline) in the same turn
For each test case, spawn two subagents in the same turn — one with the skill, one without. This is important: don't spawn the with-skill runs first and then come back for baselines later. Launch everything at once so it all finishes around the same time.
With-skill run:
Execute this task:
- Skill path: <path-to-skill>
- Task: <eval prompt>
- Input files: <eval files if any, or "none">
- Save outputs to: <workspace>/iteration-<N>/eval-<ID>/with_skill/outputs/
- Outputs to save: <what the user cares about — e.g., "the .docx file", "the final CSV">
Baseline run (same prompt, but the baseline depends on context):
- Creating a new skill: no skill at all. Same prompt, no skill path, save to
without_skill/outputs/.
- Improving an existing skill: the old version captured by the mandatory existing-skill regression gate before the first edit. Point the baseline subagent at that immutable snapshot and save to
old_skill/outputs/. If no pre-edit snapshot exists, stop and reconstruct an authoritative baseline from Git before continuing; never use the already-edited tree as the old baseline.
Write an eval_metadata.json for each test case (assertions can be empty for now). Give each eval a descriptive name based on what it's testing — not just "eval-0". Use this name for the directory too. If this iteration uses new or modified eval prompts, create these files for each new eval directory — don't assume they carry over from previous iterations.
{
"eval_id": 0,
"eval_name": "descriptive-name-here",
"prompt": "The user's task prompt",
"assertions": []
}
Step 2: While runs are in progress, draft assertions
Don't just wait for the runs to finish — you can use this time productively. Draft quantitative assertions for each test case and explain them to the user. If assertions already exist in evals/evals.json, review them and explain what they check.
Good assertions are objectively verifiable and have descriptive names — they should read clearly in the benchmark viewer so someone glancing at the results immediately understands what each one checks. Subjective skills (writing style, design quality) are better evaluated qualitatively — don't force assertions onto things that need human judgment; their real verification paths (historical-task replay, production-as-eval with a write-back habit, render + human review) are listed under question 4 of "Capture Intent".
Update the eval_metadata.json files and evals/evals.json with the assertions once drafted. Also explain to the user what they'll see in the viewer — both the qualitative outputs and the quantitative benchmark.
Step 3: As runs complete, capture timing data
When each subagent task completes, you receive a notification containing total_tokens and duration_ms. Save this data immediately to timing.json in the run directory:
{
"total_tokens": 84852,
"duration_ms": 23332,
"total_duration_seconds": 23.3
}
This is the only opportunity to capture this data — it comes through the task notification and isn't persisted elsewhere. Process each notification as it arrives rather than trying to batch them.
Step 4: Grade, aggregate, and launch the viewer
Once all runs are done:
-
Grade each run — spawn a grader subagent (or grade inline) that reads agents/grader.md and evaluates each assertion against the outputs. Save results to grading.json in each run directory. The grading.json expectations array must use the fields text, passed, and evidence (not name/met/details or other variants) — the viewer depends on these exact field names. For assertions that can be checked programmatically, write and run a script rather than eyeballing it — scripts are faster, more reliable, and can be reused across iterations. But objective grep/script assertions cut both ways (same-word-different-meaning false hits, wording-difference misses), so benchmark pass-rate is a signal, not a verdict: spot-check what each assertion actually matched, and watch for a baseline run that reveals a factual error in the skill itself (the "wait, the data IS in the API" moment). See methodology §5.3–5.6 + §6.4.
-
Aggregate into benchmark — run the aggregation script from the skill-creator directory:
python -m scripts.aggregate_benchmark <workspace>/iteration-N --skill-name <name>
This produces benchmark.json and benchmark.md with pass_rate, time, and tokens for each configuration, with mean +/- stddev and the delta. If generating benchmark.json manually, see references/eval_pipeline_schemas.md for the exact schema the viewer expects.
Put each with_skill version before its baseline counterpart.
-
Do an analyst pass — read the benchmark data and surface patterns the aggregate stats might hide. See agents/analyzer.md (the "Analyzing Benchmark Results" section) for what to look for — things like assertions that always pass regardless of skill (non-discriminating), high-variance evals (possibly flaky), and time/token tradeoffs.
-
Launch the viewer with both qualitative outputs and quantitative data:
nohup python <skill-creator-path>/eval-viewer/generate_review.py \
<workspace>/iteration-N \
--skill-name "my-skill" \
--benchmark <workspace>/iteration-N/benchmark.json \
> /dev/null 2>&1 &
VIEWER_PID=$!
For iteration 2+, also pass --previous-workspace <workspace>/iteration-<N-1>.
Cowork / headless environments: If webbrowser.open() is not available or the environment has no display, use --static <output_path> to write a standalone HTML file instead of starting a server. Feedback will be downloaded as a feedback.json file when the user clicks "Submit All Reviews". After download, copy feedback.json into the workspace directory for the next iteration to pick up.
Note: please use generate_review.py to create the viewer; there's no need to write custom HTML.
- Tell the user via AskUserQuestion:
Results are ready! I've opened the eval viewer in your browser.
- "Outputs" tab: click through each test case, leave feedback in the textbox
- "Benchmark" tab: quantitative comparison (pass rates, timing, tokens)
Take your time reviewing. When you're done, come back here.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the Outputs tab first — your qualitative feedback drives the next iteration more than the numbers do.
Options:
A) I've finished reviewing — read my feedback and improve the skill
B) I have questions about the results before giving feedback
C) Results look good enough — skip iteration, let's package the skill
D) Results need major rework — let's discuss before iterating
What the user sees in the viewer
The "Outputs" tab shows one test case at a time:
- Prompt: the task that was given
- Output: the files the skill produced, rendered inline where possible
- Previous Output (iteration 2+): collapsed section showing last iteration's output
- Formal Grades (if grading was run): collapsed section showing assertion pass/fail
- Feedback: a textbox that auto-saves as they type
- Previous Feedback (iteration 2+): their comments from last time, shown below the textbox
The "Benchmark" tab shows the stats summary: pass rates, timing, and token usage for each configuration, with per-eval breakdowns and analyst observations.
Navigation is via prev/next buttons or arrow keys. When done, they click "Submit All Reviews" which saves all feedback to feedback.json.
Step 5: Read the feedback
When the user tells you they're done, read feedback.json:
{
"reviews": [
{"run_id": "eval-0-with_skill", "feedback": "the chart is missing axis labels", "timestamp": "..."},
{"run_id": "eval-1-with_skill", "feedback": "", "timestamp": "..."},
{"run_id": "eval-2-with_skill", "feedback": "perfect, love this", "timestamp": "..."}
],
"status": "complete"
}
Empty feedback means the user thought it was fine. Focus your improvements on the test cases where the user had specific complaints.
Kill the viewer server when you're done with it:
kill $VIEWER_PID 2>/dev/null
Improving the skill
This is the heart of the loop. You've run the test cases, the user has reviewed the results, and now you need to make the skill better based on their feedback.
How to think about improvements
-
Generalize from the feedback. The big picture thing that's happening here is that we're trying to create skills that can be used a million times (maybe literally, maybe even more who knows) across many different prompts. Here you and the user are iterating on only a few examples over and over again because it helps move faster. The user knows these examples in and out and it's quick for them to assess new outputs. But if the skill you and the user are codeveloping works only for those examples, it's useless. Rather than put in fiddly overfitty changes, or oppressively constrictive MUSTs, if there's some stubborn issue, you might try branching out and using different metaphors, or recommending different patterns of working. It's relatively cheap to try and maybe you'll land on something great.
-
Keep the prompt lean without deleting the contract. Remove things that aren't pulling their weight, but treat every deletion from an existing skill as a regression candidate until the old-vs-new audit classifies it. Move detailed but reusable behavior into a directly linked reference; do not leave it only in evals, a changelog, or your memory. Read the transcripts, not just final outputs—if the skill causes unproductive work, simplify the instruction and rerun the old capability cases rather than assuming fewer words means better behavior.
-
Explain the why. Try hard to explain the why behind everything you're asking the model to do. Today's LLMs are smart. They have good theory of mind and when given a good harness can go beyond rote instructions and really make things happen. Even if the feedback from the user is terse or frustrated, try to actually understand the task and why the user is writing what they wrote, and what they actually wrote, and then transmit this understanding into the instructions. If you find yourself writing ALWAYS or NEVER in all caps, or using super rigid structures, that's a yellow flag — if possible, reframe and explain the reasoning so that the model understands why the thing you're asking for is important. That's a more humane, powerful, and effective approach.
-
Look for repeated work — in the eval transcripts AND in whatever conversation the skill was distilled from. Read the transcripts from the test runs and notice if the subagents all independently wrote similar helper scripts or took the same multi-step approach to something. If all 3 test cases resulted in the subagent writing a create_docx.py or a build_chart.py, that's a strong signal the skill should bundle that script. Write it once, put it in scripts/, and tell the skill to use it. This saves every future invocation from reinventing the wheel. The same signal hides in a source conversation you distilled a skill from — code that session wrote even once is code every future run must rewrite; don't wait for eval runs to prove the repetition (skills whose eval loop is skipped never get that proof — the Scripts check in Step 4 of the creation process is the catch-point for those).
This task is pretty important (we are trying to create billions a year in economic value here!) and your thinking time is not the blocker; take your time and really mull things over. I'd suggest writing a draft revision and then looking at it anew and making improvements. Really do your best to get into the head of the user and understand what they want and need.
After analyzing feedback, present your improvement plan via AskUserQuestion:
I've read the feedback from [N] test cases. [X] had specific complaints, [Y] looked good.
Key issues:
- [Issue 1]: [plain-language summary]
- [Issue 2]: [plain-language summary]
RECOMMENDATION: [strategy] because [reason]
Options:
A) Iterative refinement — targeted fixes for the specific issues above (Recommended)
B) Structural redesign — the core approach needs rethinking
C) Bundle a script — I noticed all test runs independently wrote similar code for [X]
D) Expand test set first — add [N] more test cases to avoid overfitting to these examples
The iteration loop
After improving the skill:
- Apply your improvements to the skill
- Rerun all test cases into a new
iteration-<N+1>/ directory, including baseline runs. If you're creating a new skill, the baseline is always without_skill (no skill). If you're improving an existing skill, the immutable original pre-edit version remains the preservation baseline for every iteration. You may additionally compare against the immediately previous iteration to measure incremental quality, but never replace the original baseline with it.
- Launch the reviewer with
--previous-workspace pointing at the previous iteration
- Wait for the user to review and tell you they're done
- Read the new feedback, improve again, repeat
At the end of each iteration, use AskUserQuestion as a checkpoint:
Iteration [N] complete. Results: [pass_rate]% assertions passing, [delta vs previous].
RECOMMENDATION: [Continue / Accept / Revert] because [one-line reason from the delta and remaining feedback].
Options:
A) Continue iterating — I see more room for improvement
B) Accept this version — it's good enough, let's move to packaging
C) Revert to previous iteration — this round made things worse
D) Run blind comparison — rigorously compare this version vs the previous one
Keep going until:
- The user says they're happy
- The feedback is all empty (everything looks good)
- You're not making meaningful progress
Advanced: Blind comparison
For situations where you want a more rigorous comparison between two versions of a skill (e.g., the user asks "is the new version actually better?"), there's a blind comparison system. Read agents/comparator.md and agents/analyzer.md for the details. The basic idea is: give two outputs to an independent agent without telling it which is which, and let it judge quality. Then analyze why the winner won.
This is optional, requires subagents, and most users won't need it. The human review loop is usually sufficient.
Description Optimization
The description field in SKILL.md frontmatter is the primary mechanism that determines whether Claude invokes a skill. After creating or improving a skill, offer to optimize the description for better triggering accuracy.
Step 1: Generate trigger eval queries
Create 20 eval queries — a mix of should-trigger and should-not-trigger. Save as JSON:
[
{"query": "the user prompt", "should_trigger": true},
{"query": "another prompt", "should_trigger": false}
]
The queries must be realistic and something a Claude Code or Claude.ai user would actually type. Not abstract requests, but requests that are concrete and specific and have a good amount of detail. For instance, file paths, personal context about the user's job or situation, column names and values, company names, URLs. A little bit of backstory. Some might be in lowercase or contain abbreviations or typos or casual speech. Use a mix of different lengths, and focus on edge cases rather than making them clear-cut (the user will get a chance to sign off on them).
Bad: "Format this data", "Extract text from PDF", "Create a chart"
Good: "ok so my boss just sent me this xlsx file (its in my downloads, called something like 'Q4 sales final FINAL v2.xlsx') and she wants me to add a column that shows the profit margin as a percentage. The revenue is in column C and costs are in column D i think"
For the should-trigger queries (8-10), think about coverage. You want different phrasings of the same intent — some formal, some casual. Include cases where the user doesn't explicitly name the skill or file type but clearly needs it. Throw in some uncommon use cases and cases where this skill competes with another but should win.
For the should-not-trigger queries (8-10), the most valuable ones are the near-misses — queries that share keywords or concepts with the skill but actually need something different. Think adjacent domains, ambiguous phrasing where a naive keyword match would trigger but shouldn't, and cases where the query touches on something the skill does but in a context where another tool is more appropriate.
The key thing to avoid: don't make should-not-trigger queries obviously irrelevant. "Write a fibonacci function" as a negative test for a PDF skill is too easy — it doesn't test anything. The negative cases should be genuinely tricky.
Step 2: Review with user
Present the eval set to the user for review using the HTML template:
- Read the template from
assets/eval_review.html
- Replace the placeholders:
__EVAL_DATA_PLACEHOLDER__ → the JSON array of eval items (no quotes around it — it's a JS variable assignment)__SKILL_NAME_PLACEHOLDER__ → the skill's name__SKILL_DESCRIPTION_PLACEHOLDER__ → the skill's current description
- Write to a temp file (e.g.,
/tmp/eval_review_<skill-name>.html) and open it: open /tmp/eval_review_<skill-name>.html
- The user can edit queries, toggle should-trigger, add/remove entries, then click "Export Eval Set"
- The file downloads to
~/Downloads/eval_set.json — check the Downloads folder for the most recent version in case there are multiple (e.g., eval_set (1).json)
This step matters — bad eval queries lead to bad descriptions.
Step 3: Run the optimization loop
Tell the user: "This will take some time — I'll run the optimization loop in the background and check on it periodically."
Save the eval set to the workspace, then run in the background:
python -m scripts.run_loop \
--eval-set <path-to-trigger-eval.json> \
--skill-path <path-to-skill> \
--model <model-id-powering-this-session> \
--max-iterations 5 \
--verbose
Use the model ID from your system prompt (the one powering the current session) so the triggering test matches what the user actually experiences.
While it runs, periodically tail the output to give the user updates on which iteration it's on and what the scores look like.
This handles the full optimization loop automatically. It splits the eval set into 60% train and 40% held-out test, evaluates the current description (running each query 3 times to get a reliable trigger rate), then calls Claude to propose improvements based on what failed. It re-evaluates each new description on both train and test, iterating up to 5 times. When it's done, it opens an HTML report in the browser showing the results per iteration and returns JSON with best_description — selected by test score rather than train score to avoid overfitting.
Sanity-check the harness before you trust best_description — it can return hollow, degenerate output. The optimizer's "verify the harness runs a known-good baseline first" obligation applies here too. If every iteration reports recall = 0% and precision = 100% with identical scores, that is not a great description — it means no query triggered the skill at all (precision has a zero denominator and is meaningless; identical scores mean the harness isn't distinguishing descriptions), so the "winning" description is usually just iteration 1 unchanged. Before applying any best_description, run one obviously-should-trigger query and confirm recall > 0. A recall-0 / all-iterations-identical result means the harness is a hidden variable (commonly: the skill is losing the trigger to installed competitors — see Coexistence below) — do NOT apply its "best"; hand-author the description and verify it with real probes instead. (methodology Cases 12, 14)
When you probe triggering yourself with claude -p, collect ALL skill calls in the run, not just the first — and remember tool-invocation is a proxy. A UserPromptSubmit/SessionStart hook can inject an unrelated skill before the model chooses, so an "exit on the first Skill call" probe will misreport a false "didn't trigger." And "did it call the Skill tool" is not the same as "did the skill's content shape the output" (the model may read the skill without a visible Skill call) nor "is the output correct." A buggy probe is itself a hidden variable that keeps you optimizing against a wrong conclusion.
How skill triggering works
Understanding the triggering mechanism helps design better eval queries. Skills appear in Claude's available_skills list with their name + description, and Claude decides whether to consult a skill based on that description. The important thing to know is that Claude only consults skills for tasks it can't easily handle on its own — simple, one-step queries like "read this PDF" may not trigger a skill even if the description matches perfectly, because Claude can handle them directly with basic tools. Complex, multi-step, or specialized queries reliably trigger skills when the description matches.
This means your eval queries should be substantive enough that Claude would actually benefit from consulting a skill. Simple queries like "read file X" are poor test cases — they won't trigger skills regardless of description quality.
Step 4: Apply the result
Take best_description from the JSON output and update the skill's SKILL.md frontmatter. Show the user before/after and report the scores.
CRITICAL: Edit Skills at Source Location
NEVER edit installed skill copies first. Treat all of these as installed/runtime copies unless the user explicitly says they are the source:
~/.codex/skills/<skill-name>~/.claude/skills/<skill-name>~/.agents/skills/<skill-name>~/.claude/plugins/cache/...~/.codex/plugins/cache/...
Editing installed copies first causes changes to be:
- Lost when cache refreshes
- Not synced to source control
- Wasted effort requiring manual re-merge
ALWAYS verify you're editing the source repository:
~/.claude/plugins/cache/daymade-skills/my-skill/1.0.0/my-skill/SKILL.md
~/.codex/skills/my-skill/SKILL.md
<repo-root>/my-skill/SKILL.md
Before any edit, run a source-location check and say which path is source:
pwd
git rev-parse --show-toplevel
rg -n '"name": "<skill-or-suite-name>"' .claude-plugin/marketplace.json
find . -path '*/SKILL.md' -maxdepth 4 | rg '(^|/)<skill-name>/SKILL.md$'
If the available-skills list points at ~/.codex/skills, ~/.claude/skills, or a plugin cache, do not assume that path is source. Locate the repository-backed source first, edit it, validate it, and only then sync the installed copy when the user needs immediate local runtime use.
Concurrent sessions on the same skill repo
