@rules/skill-anatomy.md @rules/trigger-design.md @rules/progressive-disclosure.md @rules/resource-placement.md @rules/validation-and-iteration.md @rules/anti-patterns.md
Skill Maker
Create and refactor skills as first-class products, not just markdown files.
- Build new skills that trigger reliably from user intent and metadata.
- Refactor existing skills to improve scope clarity, resource placement, and validation.
- Teach the right split between
SKILL.md,references/,scripts/,assets/, and optional UI metadata.
<routing_rule>
Use skill-maker when the output is a skill folder or a refactor of an existing skill.
Use docs-maker instead when the output is a general document, runbook, spec, or prompt artifact without a skill structure.
Do not use skill-maker when:
- the user wants general documentation rather than a skill
- the output is only a prompt, plan, or spec without a skill structure
docs-makeris sufficient because the task is about generic structured documentation
</routing_rule>
<activation_examples>
Positive requests:
- "Create a Codex skill for reviewing SQL migrations."
- "Refactor this browser QA skill so the trigger and validation stop misfiring."
- "Standardize this skill folder so
SKILL.md, rules, and references are split correctly." - "브라우저 QA용 Codex 스킬을 새로 만들어줘." (Korean)
Negative requests:
- "Rewrite this runbook for readability."
- "Summarize these OpenAI docs."
- "이 일반 온보딩 문서를 읽기 쉽게만 정리해줘." (Korean)
Boundary request:
- "Create a guide for writing skills." Use
skill-makeronly if the output should become a reusable skill folder; otherwise usedocs-maker.
</activation_examples>
<trigger_conditions>
| Situation | Mode |
|---|---|
| A new skill needs to be created | create |
| An existing skill is too long, weakly scoped, or hard to trigger | refactor |
A skill needs better description or trigger wording | refactor |
A skill needs better references/, scripts/, or assets/ placement | create/refactor |
| A team wants one consistent skill-authoring shape | create/refactor |
</trigger_conditions>
<supported_targets>
- New skill folders
- Existing skill refactors
SKILL.mdmetadata and body- Skill rule packs
- Skill references, scripts, and assets placement
- Skill validation checklists and forward-test plans
</supported_targets>
<skill_architecture>
Use this layering model by default:
- Core skill: durable instructions for what the skill does and when to use it
- Rules: reusable policy and workflow details
- References: detailed information loaded only when needed
- Scripts/assets: deterministic execution helpers or output resources
Do not overload the core SKILL.md with information that belongs in rules or references.
</skill_architecture>
<reference_routing>
Read official references when:
- provider-sensitive skill guidance affects the core rule
- trigger behavior or evaluation guidance depends on vendor docs
- maintenance or drift handling requires current vendor policy
Read the local skill-creator summary when:
- deciding how much detail belongs in the core skill
- deciding whether to add scripts or bundled resources
- deciding whether a support file is optional, recommended, or unnecessary
</reference_routing>
<support_file_read_order>
Read in this order:
- The core
SKILL.mdto decide whether this iscreateorrefactormode and what output the skill owns. rules/trigger-design.md,rules/skill-anatomy.md,rules/progressive-disclosure.md, andrules/resource-placement.mdwhen changing trigger wording, anatomy, or file split.rules/validation-and-iteration.mdandrules/anti-patterns.mdbefore declaring the skill done.references/local/skill-creator.mdwhen deciding how much detail belongs in the core or whether scripts/assets are justified.- Official references only when provider-sensitive guidance materially changes the rule.
</support_file_read_order>
<mandatory_reasoning>
Mandatory Sequential Thinking
- Always use
sequential-thinkingbefore major skill creation or refactor work. - In create mode: design the trigger, anatomy, resource split, and validation strategy first.
- In refactor mode: identify weak triggering, mixed concerns, poor resource placement, and missing validation before editing.
- Do not write or refactor a skill until the structure plan is clear.
</mandatory_reasoning>
<design_defaults>
Apply these defaults to every major skill edit:
- Optimize first for triggerability, then readability.
- Keep the core skill lean and push detail downward.
- Prefer concrete examples of user utterances over abstract claims about when the skill is useful.
- Treat validation as part of the skill, not an afterthought.
- Keep provider-sensitive guidance in references, not in the core skill.
</design_defaults>
create mode
- Start from the smallest viable skill shape.
- Add only the rules, references, scripts, and examples that materially improve the skill.
- Include enough validation to prove the skill would trigger and operate correctly.
refactor mode
- Preserve the skill's intended job unless the current scope is clearly wrong.
- Improve trigger wording, anatomy, and resource placement before adding more content.
- Remove duplication, vague guidance, and unused resources.
<default_outputs>
Default output shapes:
- create mode: new skill folder + lean core
SKILL.md+ only the needed rules/references/scripts/assets + trigger examples + validation checklist - refactor mode: updated skill + simpler resource split + explicit simplification summary + validation notes + maintainer handoff cues
</default_outputs>
| Phase | Task | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Confirm the target scope and whether this is a skill, not just a document | Scope decision |
| 1 | Read the target skill and the directly linked support files needed for the chosen mode | Baseline |
| 2 | Build the structure plan with sequential-thinking | Section/resource plan |
| 3 | Write or refactor the core SKILL.md | Updated core skill |
| 4 | Place supporting detail into rules, references, scripts, or assets | Supporting files |
| 5 | Run trigger, anatomy, and validation readback checks | Review notes |
| 6 | Finalize with explicit validation and remaining risks | Finalized skill |
Phase 3 authoring rules
- Make the
descriptionspecific about both capability and trigger conditions. - Keep the first screen of
SKILL.mdenough to explain the skill's job and boundary. - Use one term per concept across the skill.
- Prefer examples of real user requests that should trigger the skill.
- Put skill-specific structure rules into
rules/, not into a swollen core body. - Keep the core skill durable across provider and model churn.
| Category | Avoid |
|---|---|
| Triggering | Generic descriptions that could match many unrelated requests |
| Structure | Huge SKILL.md bodies that duplicate references |
| Resources | Deeply nested references or unused scripts/assets |
| Validation | Declaring a skill complete without trigger and usage checks |
| Drift | Time-sensitive provider details in canonical core instructions |
| Category | Required |
|---|---|
| Triggerability | Specific name and description that reflect real user wording |
| Anatomy | Clear split between SKILL.md, rules, references, scripts, and assets |
| Actionability | Concrete workflow steps and validation checks |
| Examples | Trigger examples and folder-shape examples |
| Maintainability | Progressive disclosure and low-duplication design |
| Validation | Trigger tests, resource-placement checks, and forward-test guidance |
<structure_blueprint>
Use this layout unless a better skill-specific structure is required:
- Purpose
- Trigger conditions
- Supported targets
- Skill architecture
- Workflow
- Examples
- Validation checklist
- References when provider-sensitive guidance exists
</structure_blueprint>
<usage_examples>
Example: create a new skill
- Define what job the skill owns.
- Write the trigger description from realistic user requests.
- Decide what stays in
SKILL.mdand what moves torules/orreferences/. - Add scripts only if deterministic execution is better than prose.
- Add validation for trigger quality and real-use coverage.
Example: refactor an overgrown skill
- Read the current
SKILL.md, rules, and references. - Mark duplicated content and misplaced detail.
- Rewrite the description so it triggers on the right requests.
- Split long detail into references or scripts.
- Re-read the skill as if you were a new maintainer and a trigger model.
</usage_examples>
| Check | Rule |
|---|---|
| Trigger quality | description states what the skill does and when to use it |
| Scope clarity | The skill boundary is obvious in the first screen |
| Resource placement | Core body, rules, references, scripts, and assets each hold the right content |
| Density | Repetition is removed and the core body stays lean |
| Examples | Trigger examples match likely user requests |
| Operator cues | The next file to read and the next place to put detail are obvious |
| Safety | Time-sensitive or provider-sensitive guidance is isolated into references |
| Validation | The skill includes realistic checks, not only prose review |
Completion checklist:
- Mode decided (
createorrefactor) - Sequential-thinking plan created first
- Trigger wording reviewed (
rules/trigger-design.md) - Skill anatomy reviewed (
rules/skill-anatomy.md) - Progressive disclosure reviewed (
rules/progressive-disclosure.md) - Resource placement reviewed (
rules/resource-placement.md) - Validation and forward-test checks reviewed (
rules/validation-and-iteration.md) - Anti-pattern checks reviewed (
rules/anti-patterns.md) - Core skill remains lean and coherent
- Support-file read order is explicit enough
- Validation checks completed
Must-pass thresholds:
- At least 3 positive trigger examples
- At least 2 negative trigger examples
- At least 1 boundary trigger example
- No reference chain deeper than one level from
SKILL.md - Core
SKILL.mdbody stays under roughly 300 lines unless explicitly justified - No duplicated definitions across core and references