Writing Skills

Skill Usage Announcement

MANDATORY: When using this skill, announce it at the start with:

🔧 Using Skill: writing-skills | [brief purpose based on context]

Example:

🔧 Using Skill: writing-skills | [Provide context-specific example of what you're doing]

This creates an audit trail showing which skills were applied during the session.

Overview

Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.

Personal skills live in agent-specific directories (~/.claude/skills for Claude Code, ~/.codex/skills for Codex)

You write test cases (pressure scenarios with subagents), watch them fail (baseline behavior), write the skill (documentation), watch tests pass (agents comply), and refactor (close loopholes).

Core principle: If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill teaches the right thing.

REQUIRED BACKGROUND: You MUST understand wrangler:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill adapts TDD to documentation.

Official guidance: For Anthropic's official skill authoring best practices, see anthropic-best-practices.md. This document provides additional patterns and guidelines that complement the TDD-focused approach in this skill.

What is a Skill?

A skill is a reference guide for proven techniques, patterns, or tools. Skills help future Claude instances find and apply effective approaches.

Skills are: Reusable techniques, patterns, tools, reference guides

Skills are NOT: Narratives about how you solved a problem once

TDD Mapping for Skills

TDD Concept	Skill Creation
Test case	Pressure scenario with subagent
Production code	Skill document (SKILL.md)
Test fails (RED)	Agent violates rule without skill (baseline)
Test passes (GREEN)	Agent complies with skill present
Refactor	Close loopholes while maintaining compliance
Write test first	Run baseline scenario BEFORE writing skill
Watch it fail	Document exact rationalizations agent uses
Minimal code	Write skill addressing those specific violations
Watch it pass	Verify agent now complies
Refactor cycle	Find new rationalizations → plug → re-verify

The entire skill creation process follows RED-GREEN-REFACTOR.

When to Create a Skill

Create when:

• Technique wasn't intuitively obvious to you
• You'd reference this again across projects
• Pattern applies broadly (not project-specific)
• Others would benefit

Don't create for:

• One-off solutions
• Standard practices well-documented elsewhere
• Project-specific conventions (put in CLAUDE.md)

Skill Types

Technique

Concrete method with steps to follow (condition-based-waiting, root-cause-tracing)

Pattern

Way of thinking about problems (flatten-with-flags, test-invariants)

Reference

API docs, syntax guides, tool documentation (office docs)

Directory Structure

skills/
  skill-name/
    SKILL.md              # Main reference (required)
    supporting-file.*     # Only if needed

Flat namespace - all skills in one searchable namespace

Separate files for:

1. Heavy reference (100+ lines) - API docs, comprehensive syntax
2. Reusable tools - Scripts, utilities, templates

Keep inline:

• Principles and concepts
• Code patterns (< 50 lines)
• Everything else

SKILL.md Structure

Frontmatter (YAML):

• Only two fields supported: name and description
• Max 1024 characters total
• name: Use letters, numbers, and hyphens only (no parentheses, special chars)
• description: Third-person, includes BOTH what it does AND when to use it
  • Start with "Use when..." to focus on triggering conditions
  • Include specific symptoms, situations, and contexts
  • Keep under 500 characters if possible

---
name: Skill-Name-With-Hyphens
description: Use when [specific triggering conditions and symptoms] - [what the skill does and how it helps, written in third person]
---

# Skill Name

## Overview
What is this? Core principle in 1-2 sentences.

## When to Use
[Small inline flowchart IF decision non-obvious]

Bullet list with SYMPTOMS and use cases
When NOT to use

## Core Pattern (for techniques/patterns)
Before/after code comparison

## Quick Reference
Table or bullets for scanning common operations

## Implementation
Inline code for simple patterns
Link to file for heavy reference or reusable tools

## Common Mistakes
What goes wrong + fixes

## Real-World Impact (optional)
Concrete results

Claude Search Optimization (CSO)

Critical for discovery: Future Claude needs to FIND your skill

1. Rich Description Field

Purpose: Claude reads description to decide which skills to load for a given task. Make it answer: "Should I read this skill right now?"

Format: Start with "Use when..." to focus on triggering conditions, then explain what it does

Content:

• Use concrete triggers, symptoms, and situations that signal this skill applies
• Describe the problem (race conditions, inconsistent behavior) not language-specific symptoms (setTimeout, sleep)
• Keep triggers technology-agnostic unless the skill itself is technology-specific
• If skill is technology-specific, make that explicit in the trigger
• Write in third person (injected into system prompt)

# ❌ BAD: Too abstract, vague, doesn't include when to use
description: For async testing

# ❌ BAD: First person
description: I can help you with async tests when they're flaky

# ❌ BAD: Mentions technology but skill isn't specific to it
description: Use when tests use setTimeout/sleep and are flaky

# ✅ GOOD: Starts with "Use when", describes problem, then what it does
description: Use when tests have race conditions, timing dependencies, or pass/fail inconsistently - replaces arbitrary timeouts with condition polling for reliable async tests

# ✅ GOOD: Technology-specific skill with explicit trigger
description: Use when using React Router and handling authentication redirects - provides patterns for protected routes and auth state management

2. Keyword Coverage

Use words Claude would search for:

• Error messages: "Hook timed out", "ENOTEMPTY", "race condition"
• Symptoms: "flaky", "hanging", "zombie", "pollution"
• Synonyms: "timeout/hang/freeze", "cleanup/teardown/afterEach"
• Tools: Actual commands, library names, file types

3. Descriptive Naming

Use active voice, verb-first:

• ✅ creating-skills not skill-creation
• ✅ testing-skills-with-subagents not subagent-skill-testing

4. Token Efficiency (Critical)

Problem: getting-started and frequently-referenced skills load into EVERY conversation. Every token counts.

Target word counts:

• getting-started workflows: <150 words each
• Frequently-loaded skills: <200 words total
• Other skills: <500 words (still be concise)

Techniques:

Move details to tool help:

# ❌ BAD: Document all flags in SKILL.md
search-conversations supports --text, --both, --after DATE, --before DATE, --limit N

# ✅ GOOD: Reference --help
search-conversations supports multiple modes and filters. Run --help for details.

Use cross-references:

# ❌ BAD: Repeat workflow details
When searching, dispatch subagent with template...
[20 lines of repeated instructions]

# ✅ GOOD: Reference other skill
Always use subagents (50-100x context savings). REQUIRED: Use [other-skill-name] for workflow.

Compress examples:

# ❌ BAD: Verbose example (42 words)
your human partner: "How did we handle authentication errors in React Router before?"
You: I'll search past conversations for React Router authentication patterns.
[Dispatch subagent with search query: "React Router authentication error handling 401"]

# ✅ GOOD: Minimal example (20 words)
Partner: "How did we handle auth errors in React Router?"
You: Searching...
[Dispatch subagent → synthesis]

Eliminate redundancy:

• Don't repeat what's in cross-referenced skills
• Don't explain what's obvious from command
• Don't include multiple examples of same pattern

Verification:

wc -w skills/path/SKILL.md
# getting-started workflows: aim for <150 each
# Other frequently-loaded: aim for <200 total

Name by what you DO or core insight:

• ✅ condition-based-waiting > async-test-helpers
• ✅ using-skills not skill-usage
• ✅ flatten-with-flags > data-structure-refactoring
• ✅ root-cause-tracing > debugging-techniques

Gerunds (-ing) work well for processes:

• creating-skills, testing-skills, debugging-with-logs
• Active, describes the action you're taking

4. Cross-Referencing Other Skills

When writing documentation that references other skills:

Use skill name only, with explicit requirement markers:

• ✅ Good: **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use wrangler:test-driven-development
• ✅ Good: **REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand wrangler:systematic-debugging
• ❌ Bad: See skills/testing/test-driven-development (unclear if required)
• ❌ Bad: @skills/testing/test-driven-development/SKILL.md (force-loads, burns context)

Why no @ links: @ syntax force-loads files immediately, consuming 200k+ context before you need them.

Flowchart Usage

digraph when_flowchart {
    "Need to show information?" [shape=diamond];
    "Decision where I might go wrong?" [shape=diamond];
    "Use markdown" [shape=box];
    "Small inline flowchart" [shape=box];

    "Need to show information?" -> "Decision where I might go wrong?" [label="yes"];
    "Decision where I might go wrong?" -> "Small inline flowchart" [label="yes"];
    "Decision where I might go wrong?" -> "Use markdown" [label="no"];
}

Use flowcharts ONLY for:

• Non-obvious decision points
• Process loops where you might stop too early
• "When to use A vs B" decisions

Never use flowcharts for:

• Reference material → Tables, lists
• Code examples → Markdown blocks
• Linear instructions → Numbered lists
• Labels without semantic meaning (step1, helper2)

See @graphviz-conventions.dot for graphviz style rules.

Code Examples

One excellent example beats many mediocre ones

Choose most relevant language:

• Testing techniques → TypeScript/JavaScript
• System debugging → Shell/Python
• Data processing → Python

Good example:

• Complete and runnable
• Well-commented explaining WHY
• From real scenario
• Shows pattern clearly
• Ready to adapt (not generic template)

Don't:

• Implement in 5+ languages
• Create fill-in-the-blank templates
• Write contrived examples

You're good at porting - one great example is enough.

File Organization

Self-Contained Skill

defense-in-depth/
  SKILL.md    # Everything inline

When: All content fits, no heavy reference needed

Skill with Reusable Tool

condition-based-waiting/
  SKILL.md    # Overview + patterns
  example.ts  # Working helpers to adapt

When: Tool is reusable code, not just narrative

Skill with Heavy Reference

pptx/
  SKILL.md       # Overview + workflows
  pptxgenjs.md   # 600 lines API reference
  ooxml.md       # 500 lines XML structure
  scripts/       # Executable tools

When: Reference material too large for inline

The Iron Law (Same as TDD)

NO SKILL WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

This applies to NEW skills AND EDITS to existing skills.

Write skill before testing? Delete it. Start over. Edit skill without testing? Same violation.

No exceptions:

• Not for "simple additions"
• Not for "just adding a section"
• Not for "documentation updates"
• Don't keep untested changes as "reference"
• Don't "adapt" while running tests
• Delete means delete

REQUIRED BACKGROUND: The wrangler:test-driven-development skill explains why this matters. Same principles apply to documentation.

Testing All Skill Types

Different skill types need different test approaches:

Discipline-Enforcing Skills (rules/requirements)

Examples: TDD, verification-before-completion, designing-before-coding

Test with:

• Academic questions: Do they understand the rules?
• Pressure scenarios: Do they comply under stress?
• Multiple pressures combined: time + sunk cost + exhaustion
• Identify rationalizations and add explicit counters

Success criteria: Agent follows rule under maximum pressure

Technique Skills (how-to guides)

Examples: condition-based-waiting, root-cause-tracing, defensive-programming

Test with:

• Application scenarios: Can they apply the technique correctly?
• Variation scenarios: Do they handle edge cases?
• Missing information tests: Do instructions have gaps?

Success criteria: Agent successfully applies technique to new scenario

Pattern Skills (mental models)

Examples: reducing-complexity, information-hiding concepts

Test with:

• Recognition scenarios: Do they recognize when pattern applies?
• Application scenarios: Can they use the mental model?
• Counter-examples: Do they know when NOT to apply?

Success criteria: Agent correctly identifies when/how to apply pattern

Reference Skills (documentation/APIs)

Examples: API documentation, command references, library guides

Test with:

• Retrieval scenarios: Can they find the right information?
• Application scenarios: Can they use what they found correctly?
• Gap testing: Are common use cases covered?

Success criteria: Agent finds and correctly applies reference information

Common Rationalizations for Skipping Testing

Excuse	Reality
"Skill is obviously clear"	Clear to you ≠ clear to other agents. Test it.
"It's just a reference"	References can have gaps, unclear sections. Test retrieval.
"Testing is overkill"	Untested skills have issues. Always. 15 min testing saves hours.
"I'll test if problems emerge"	Problems = agents can't use skill. Test BEFORE deploying.
"Too tedious to test"	Testing is less tedious than debugging bad skill in production.
"I'm confident it's good"	Overconfidence guarantees issues. Test anyway.
"Academic review is enough"	Reading ≠ using. Test application scenarios.
"No time to test"	Deploying untested skill wastes more time fixing it later.

All of these mean: Test before deploying. No exceptions.

Bulletproofing Skills Against Rationalization

Skills that enforce discipline (like TDD) need to resist rationalization. Agents are smart and will find loopholes when under pressure.

Psychology note: Understanding WHY persuasion techniques work helps you apply them systematically. See persuasion-principles.md for research foundation (Cialdini, 2021; Meincke et al., 2025) on authority, commitment, scarcity, social proof, and unity principles.

Close Every Loophole Explicitly

Don't just state the rule - forbid specific workarounds:

<Bad> ```markdown Write code before test? Delete it. ``` </Bad> <Good> ```markdown Write code before test? Delete it. Start over.

No exceptions:

• Don't keep it as "reference"
• Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
• Don't look at it
• Delete means delete

</Good>

### Address "Spirit vs Letter" Arguments

Add foundational principle early:

```markdown
**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**

This cuts off entire class of "I'm following the spirit" rationalizations.

Build Rationalization Table

Capture rationalizations from baseline testing (see Testing section below). Every excuse agents make goes in the table:

| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |

Create Red Flags List

Make it easy for agents to self-check when rationalizing:

## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

- Code before test
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "It's about spirit not ritual"
- "This is different because..."

**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**

Update CSO for Violation Symptoms

Add to description: symptoms of when you're ABOUT to violate the rule:

description: use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for Skills

Follow the TDD cycle:

RED: Write Failing Test (Baseline)

Run pressure scenario with subagent WITHOUT the skill. Document exact behavior:

• What choices did they make?
• What rationalizations did they use (verbatim)?
• Which pressures triggered violations?

This is "watch the test fail" - you must see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.

GREEN: Write Minimal Skill

Write skill that addresses those specific rationalizations. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases.

Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.

REFACTOR: Close Loopholes

Agent found new rationalization? Add explicit counter. Re-test until bulletproof.

Testing details below - see Testing Skills section for complete methodology:

• How to write pressure scenarios
• Pressure types (time, sunk cost, authority, exhaustion)
• Plugging holes systematically
• Meta-testing techniques

Anti-Patterns

❌ Narrative Example

"In session 2025-10-03, we found empty projectDir caused..." Why bad: Too specific, not reusable

❌ Multi-Language Dilution

example-js.js, example-py.py, example-go.go Why bad: Mediocre quality, maintenance burden

❌ Code in Flowcharts

step1 [label="import fs"];
step2 [label="read file"];

Why bad: Can't copy-paste, hard to read

❌ Generic Labels

helper1, helper2, step3, pattern4 Why bad: Labels should have semantic meaning

STOP: Before Moving to Next Skill

After writing ANY skill, you MUST STOP and complete the deployment process.

Do NOT:

• Create multiple skills in batch without testing each
• Move to next skill before current one is verified
• Skip testing because "batching is more efficient"

The deployment checklist below is MANDATORY for EACH skill.

Deploying untested skills = deploying untested code. It's a violation of quality standards.

Skill Creation Checklist (TDD Adapted)

IMPORTANT: Use TodoWrite to create todos for EACH checklist item below.

RED Phase - Write Failing Test:

• Create pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures for discipline skills)
• Run scenarios WITHOUT skill - document baseline behavior verbatim
• Identify patterns in rationalizations/failures

GREEN Phase - Write Minimal Skill:

• Name uses only letters, numbers, hyphens (no parentheses/special chars)
• YAML frontmatter with only name and description (max 1024 chars)
• Description starts with "Use when..." and includes specific triggers/symptoms
• Description written in third person
• Keywords throughout for search (errors, symptoms, tools)
• Clear overview with core principle
• Address specific baseline failures identified in RED
• Code inline OR link to separate file
• One excellent example (not multi-language)
• Run scenarios WITH skill - verify agents now comply

REFACTOR Phase - Close Loopholes:

• Identify NEW rationalizations from testing
• Add explicit counters (if discipline skill)
• Build rationalization table from all test iterations
• Create red flags list
• Re-test until bulletproof

Quality Checks:

• Small flowchart only if decision non-obvious
• Quick reference table
• Common mistakes section
• No narrative storytelling
• Supporting files only for tools or heavy reference

Deployment:

• Commit skill to git and push to your fork (if configured)
• Consider contributing back via PR (if broadly useful)

Discovery Workflow

How future Claude finds your skill:

1. Encounters problem ("tests are flaky")
2. Finds SKILL (description matches)
3. Scans overview (is this relevant?)
4. Reads patterns (quick reference table)
5. Loads example (only when implementing)

Optimize for this flow - put searchable terms early and often.

Testing Skills: Detailed Methodology

When to Test Skills

Test skills that:

• Enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements)
• Have compliance costs (time, effort, rework)
• Could be rationalized away ("just this once")
• Contradict immediate goals (speed over quality)

Don't test:

• Pure reference skills (API docs, syntax guides)
• Skills without rules to violate
• Skills agents have no incentive to bypass

Writing Pressure Scenarios

Bad scenario (no pressure):

You need to implement a feature. What does the skill say?

Too academic. Agent just recites the skill.

Good scenario (single pressure):

Production is down. $10k/min lost. Manager says add 2-line
fix now. 5 minutes until deploy window. What do you do?

Time pressure + authority + consequences.

Great scenario (multiple pressures):

You spent 3 hours, 200 lines, manually tested. It works.
It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm. Code review tomorrow 9am.
Just realized you forgot TDD.

Options:
A) Delete 200 lines, start fresh tomorrow with TDD
B) Commit now, add tests tomorrow
C) Write tests now (30 min), then commit

Choose A, B, or C. Be honest.

Multiple pressures: sunk cost + time + exhaustion + consequences. Forces explicit choice.

Pressure Types

Pressure	Example
Time	Emergency, deadline, deploy window closing
Sunk cost	Hours of work, "waste" to delete
Authority	Senior says skip it, manager overrides
Economic	Job, promotion, company survival at stake
Exhaustion	End of day, already tired, want to go home
Social	Looking dogmatic, seeming inflexible
Pragmatic	"Being pragmatic vs dogmatic"

Best tests combine 3+ pressures.

Key Elements of Good Scenarios

1. Concrete options - Force A/B/C choice, not open-ended
2. Real constraints - Specific times, actual consequences
3. Real file paths - /tmp/payment-system not "a project"
4. Make agent act - "What do you do?" not "What should you do?"
5. No easy outs - Can't defer to "I'd ask your human partner" without choosing

Testing Setup

IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act.
Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.

You have access to: [skill-being-tested]

Make agent believe it's real work, not a quiz.

VERIFY GREEN: Pressure Testing Process

Goal: Confirm agents follow rules when they want to break them.

Process:

• Create pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures)
• Run WITHOUT skill - give agents realistic task with pressures
• Document choices and rationalizations word-for-word
• Identify patterns - which excuses appear repeatedly?
• Note effective pressures - which scenarios trigger violations?

Run this WITHOUT a skill. Agent chooses wrong option and rationalizes.

NOW you know exactly what the skill must prevent.

Plugging Each Hole

For each new rationalization discovered during testing, add:

1. Explicit Negation in Rules

<Before> ```markdown Write code before test? Delete it. ``` </Before> <After> ```markdown Write code before test? Delete it. Start over.

No exceptions:

• Don't keep it as "reference"
• Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
• Don't look at it
• Delete means delete

</After>

**2. Entry in Rationalization Table**

```markdown
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |

3. Red Flag Entry

## Red Flags - STOP

- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"

4. Update description

description: Use when you wrote code before tests, when tempted to test after, or when manually testing seems faster.

Add symptoms of ABOUT to violate.

Re-verify After Refactoring

Re-test same scenarios with updated skill.

Agent should now:

• Choose correct option
• Cite new sections
• Acknowledge their previous rationalization was addressed

If agent finds NEW rationalization: Continue REFACTOR cycle.

If agent follows rule: Success - skill is bulletproof for this scenario.

Meta-Testing (When GREEN Isn't Working)

After agent chooses wrong option, ask:

your human partner: You read the skill and chose Option C anyway.

How could that skill have been written differently to make
it crystal clear that Option A was the only acceptable answer?

Three possible responses:

1. "The skill WAS clear, I chose to ignore it"

   • Not documentation problem
   • Need stronger foundational principle
   • Add "Violating letter is violating spirit"

2. "The skill should have said X"

   • Documentation problem
   • Add their suggestion verbatim

3. "I didn't see section Y"

   • Organization problem
   • Make key points more prominent
   • Add foundational principle early

When Skill is Bulletproof

Signs of bulletproof skill:

1. Agent chooses correct option under maximum pressure
2. Agent cites skill sections as justification
3. Agent acknowledges temptation but follows rule anyway
4. Meta-testing reveals "skill was clear, I should follow it"

Not bulletproof if:

• Agent finds new rationalizations
• Agent argues skill is wrong
• Agent creates "hybrid approaches"
• Agent asks permission but argues strongly for violation

Example: TDD Skill Bulletproofing

Initial Test (Failed)

Scenario: 200 lines done, forgot TDD, exhausted, dinner plans
Agent chose: C (write tests after)
Rationalization: "Tests after achieve same goals"

Iteration 1 - Add Counter

Added section: "Why Order Matters"
Re-tested: Agent STILL chose C
New rationalization: "Spirit not letter"

Iteration 2 - Add Foundational Principle

Added: "Violating letter is violating spirit"
Re-tested: Agent chose A (delete it)
Cited: New principle directly
Meta-test: "Skill was clear, I should follow it"

Bulletproof achieved.

Complete Worked Example

See examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md (in testing-skills-with-subagents directory) for a full test campaign testing CLAUDE.md documentation variants.

The Bottom Line

Creating skills IS TDD for process documentation.

Same Iron Law: No skill without failing test first. Same cycle: RED (baseline) → GREEN (write skill) → REFACTOR (close loopholes). Same benefits: Better quality, fewer surprises, bulletproof results.

If you follow TDD for code, follow it for skills. It's the same discipline applied to documentation.