| name | skill-based-architecture |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks to "organize the project rules", "clean up scattered documentation", "把规则迁移到 skills 目录", "优化 skill 路由", "提高 description 命中率", or "减少薄壳重复维护". Activate when a SKILL.md is too large, rules are duplicated across agent entry files, task routing or trigger_examples miss natural user language, or templates / thin shells / validation scripts need drift-resistant maintenance.
|
Skill-Based Architecture
Restructure oversized single-file Skills or scattered project rules into a well-organized Skill directory. Builds on the official minimal Agent Skill contract (name + description) and kicks in when a single small SKILL.md is no longer enough.
When to Use
- A single SKILL.md exceeds ~150 lines, mixing rules, workflows, and background material
- Project rules are scattered across
AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, CODEX.md, .cursor/rules/, .claude/, etc.
- User explicitly requests Skill-based architecture or rule consolidation
When NOT to Use
- Very small projects (fewer than 3 rule/doc files)
- Temporary repos with no long-term maintenance needs
- Teams with a well-functioning documentation system who don't want to migrate
Progressive Rigor
Grow only under pressure. Tiers: Single-file (SKILL.md only, < 3 topics) → Folder-light (+ rules/, 3–5 topics or 1 recurring workflow) → Full (+ workflows/ + references/ + thin shells; ≥ 3 routed tasks, gotcha log, or multi-harness repo). Upgrade triggers: SKILL.md body > 90 lines or description > 25 lines, same pitfall surfaces twice, a task needs step-by-step instructions, or two harnesses share routing. Split by abstraction (骨架/肉) when content tangles invariant design theory with current-code facts: abstract theory → architecture/, code maps → references/, house style → conventions/, per-module landmines → gotchas/ (methodology stays in rules/). Downgrade when content shrinks. Details: references/progressive-rigor.md.
Target Structure
skills/<name>/
├── SKILL.md # dual budget (description ≤ 25 + body ≤ 90 lines): always-read list, task routing, priority
├── architecture/ # abstract design theory (骨架) — layering/contract principles, the "why" — NOT the module map
├── conventions/ # house style (肉) — naming, paths, commands, formats
├── gotchas/ # code-coupled landmines (肉) — one file per module; index.md hub lists them
├── workflows/ # step-by-step procedures (骨架 — process theory)
├── references/ # code maps + background (肉) — module tree, dir layout, source index, build/env
└── docs/ # Optional: prompts, reports, external-facing material
Root entries (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, CODEX.md, GEMINI.md, .cursor/rules/*.mdc) → thin shells with a routing.yaml bootstrap, not duplicated route tables.
.cursor/skills/<name>/SKILL.md → Cursor registration entry (required for discovery). See REFERENCE.md for templates.
Core Principles
- Single concise entry —
SKILL.md keeps a dual budget: description ≤ 25 lines (trigger phrases + activation) + body ≤ 90 lines (navigation). It navigates, not exhausts. ✓ Check: smoke-test reports both separately; over either → split intent clusters / move detail to sub-files.
- One skill folder — all formal docs under
skills/<name>/, not scattered at repo root. ✓ Check: ls *.md at root shows only thin shells, not rule/workflow files.
- Rules ≠ Flows —
rules/ for constraints, workflows/ for procedures. ✓ Check: any numbered steps in rules/? Any "always/never" in workflows/? Either = mixing.
- Routing.yaml as source — task routes live in
routing.yaml; shells only say how to read it. ✓ Check: route changed without running sync/check? No → drift risk.
- Cursor registration entry —
.cursor/skills/<name>/SKILL.md must exist. ✓ Check: ls .cursor/skills/ — missing = Cursor cannot discover the skill.
- Progressive Rigor — three tiers (Single-file / Folder-light / Full); grow only under pressure — see Progressive Rigor section above + details. ✓ Check: can you name the specific pressure that forced the current tier? "It felt right" ≠ pressure.
- Description = coarse activation — domain boundary + real user trigger phrases; never enumerate workflow keywords nor summarize a workflow's steps — a step-summary becomes a shortcut the agent runs instead of reading the body (ref). ✓ Check: (a) can Common Tasks change without rewriting the description? (b) does the description or any route label carry HOW an agent could act on without opening the body/workflow? "no" to (a) or "yes" to (b) → fix.
- Gotchas are highest-value — maintain costly pitfalls actively; keep them discoverable. ✓ Check: is each high-cost gotcha reachable from a Common Tasks route, not only buried in
references/?
- Progressive disclosure — SKILL.md links one level deep; deep content pulled only when task-routed. ✓ Check: open SKILL.md and follow every link — does any target file link further to a third level that should have been reachable from SKILL.md directly? If yes, SKILL.md is hiding its routing structure.
- Task Closure Protocol — when a task modifies code or docs, finalization includes original-constraint check + AAR per the Trigger Policy, not just "tests passed" (ref); behavior change covers interaction, schema/renderer, styling, overlay/z-index, and host-compat. Pure Q&A / read-only tasks are exempt. ✓ Check: when the policy admitted the task into the protocol, can you restate the user's original constraints and all AAR answers before marking done?
- Generalization rule — records must make sense outside current project context (ref). ✓ Check: replace project name with a different one — still makes sense? No → rewrite as pattern.
- Self-maintenance — line counts signal evaluation, not automatic action. ✓ Check before splitting: topics independently navigable? Reader ever wants only one part? Both yes → split.
- Activation over storage — content in
references/ alone is not "captured"; it must be on the task path and change what the agent does when read. Reached-but-inert (correct, on-route, yet the agent would have proceeded identically without it) is a distinct failure from absent or unreachable — and no structural gate (orphan / route-reachability / smoke-test) can see it, only judgment can. ✓ Check: (a) trace the normal route — Agent hits the entry without hunting? (b) does hitting it change the next action — a file it now reads, a check it now runs, a step it now skips? "no" to either → stored, not activated.
- Token efficiency — Always-read stays 2–3 files; domain files via Common Tasks only. ✓ Check: Always Read > 3 entries? Demote lowest-frequency.
- Rationalizations Table — captures verbatim excuses from real pressure-test failures, organic or proven by a baseline run before shipping (ref, Phase 9). ✓ Check: every row traces to a real failure — no failure observed and unwilling to baseline it → imagined-pain, drop it.
- Response discipline — output short, precise, direct answers; avoid process narration, self-congratulation, gratuitous confirmations, and requirement restatement. Correct objective errors neutrally; do not infer user stance. ✓ Check: does each sentence serve the explicit request? No → delete it.
Common Pitfalls
- Missing Cursor registration entry — Formal skill at
skills/<name>/ but no .cursor/skills/<name>/SKILL.md → Cursor never discovers the skill; all rules/workflows silently ignored
- Soft-pointer-only shell — Thin shell says only "go read SKILL.md" without a
routing.yaml bootstrap → instruction lost after context summarization in long conversations
- Vague / wrong-scope description — Description is passive, wrong-language, too narrow ("fix bug" only), or bloated with every workflow keyword → skill misses natural requests or over-fires; keep description domain-level and route tasks in SKILL.md
- Stored but not activated — or activated but inert — Costly pitfall recorded in
references/ but not surfaced in any workflow checklist or SKILL.md routing → future agents still miss it. Subtler form: it is on the route and gets read, but it's "correct but inert" — written as a background fact, not as a next action — so the agent reads it and proceeds unchanged. Reachable ≠ useful; the entry must change what the agent does, not merely be present and correct
- Task Closure Protocol skipped when it should have fired — Agent considers itself "done" after main work and skips the 30-second AAR scan even though the Trigger Policy admitted the task (code/doc change happened) → lessons not captured. AAR is a completion gate when triggered, not an optional add-on. Pure Q&A / read-only tasks are correctly exempt — do not run AAR on them either
- Project-specific records — Lessons written as project narratives ("in our product module, we found…") instead of reusable knowledge → useless outside current context; apply generalization rule before recording
- No SessionStart hook on long sessions —
/clear or /compact silently drops SKILL.md from context; agent loses all routing and protocol awareness without the user noticing → install SessionStart hook if your harness supports it (see references/thin-shells.md § SessionStart Hook)
- Route skipping in multi-task sessions — Agent reads SKILL.md for the first task, then skips re-reading for subsequent tasks in the same session ("I already know the rules"). New tasks may match different routes; context may have been compressed. Result: agent works from partial/stale memory, misses critical rules, debugs in wrong direction for hours → SKILL.md template ships a tiered Session Discipline (re-match the route every task; re-read files only on route-change or compaction — cheap re-match catches different routes without re-reading everything); all shells carry the trigger
- Long-task final drift — Agent follows the route early, then invents at the end after many tool calls or corrections → run
templates/skill/protocol-blocks/reboot-check.md before final validation/commit if original constraints are no longer fresh
- Imagined-pain engineering — Agent 提议加任何机制(规则/脚本/文件结构/模板章节)前没反问"这解决的是真痛点还是脑补":为未发生的失败加保险、为想象用户预建脚手架、为不存在的协议加 marker / 监控、给假设的"agent 偏差"立规矩。✓ Check:能给一个具体场景(file+line / commit / session)证明这事真发生过吗?给不出 → 不上。Historic: 5 ghost scripts (砍 2026-05-19), dossier schema (砍 2026-05-19), reflection-first mode shift (弃 2026-05-20), observations 日志 (拒上 2026-05-20)
Content Classification
| Content type — tier by abstraction: 骨架 (architecture/workflows/rules = invariant theory) vs 肉 (conventions/gotchas/references = current-code facts) · split playbook | Target | Kind |
|---|
| Abstract design theory — layering/contract/orchestration/transaction principles, the "why" (NOT the module map) | architecture/ | 骨架 |
| Code maps + background — module tree, dir layout, source index, build/env notes | references/ | 肉 |
| House style — naming, paths, commands, formats, must/never conventions | conventions/ | 肉 |
| Code-coupled landmines (symptom → cause → fix), one file per module | gotchas/ (hub: gotchas/index.md) | 肉 |
| Step-by-step task procedures (process theory) | workflows/ | 骨架 |
| Prompts/reports/docs · editor config (thin shells) | docs/ · .cursor/ .claude/ | — |
Multi-Skill & Composition
Multi-skill repos — see references/multi-skill-routing.md (operating + fission + coexistence). For invoking other skills from your workflows (embedded / serial / subagent delegation), see references/skill-composition.md + starter templates/skill/workflows/invoke-skill.md.example.
Resources
