Imlazy Write Skills

Writing Skills

Overview

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

Personal skills live in your runtime's skills directory

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 imlazy: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 agents 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 your instructions file)
• Mechanical constraints (if it's enforceable with regex/validation, automate it—save documentation for judgment calls)

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 ( 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

5. Cross-Referencing Other Skills

When writing documentation that references other skills:

Use skill name only, with explicit requirement markers:

• ✅ Good: **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use imlazy:test-driven-development
• ✅ Good: **REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand imlazy: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 in this directory for graphviz style rules.

Visualizing for the user: Use render-graphs.js in this directory to render a skill's flowcharts to SVG:

./render-graphs.js ../some-skill           # Each diagram separately
./render-graphs.js ../some-skill --combine # All diagrams in one SVG

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 imlazy: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.

Match the Form to the Failure

Before writing guidance, classify the baseline failure. The form that bulletproofs one failure type measurably backfires on another.

| Baseline failure | Right form | Wrong form | |---|---|---| | Skips/violates a rule under pressure (knows better, does it anyway) | Prohibition + rationalization table + red flags (see Bulletproofing below) | Soft guidance ("prefer...", "consider...") | | Complies, but output has the wrong shape (bloated prompt, buried verdict, restated spec) | Positive recipe or contract: state what the output IS its parts, in order | Prohibition list ("don't restate", "never narrate") | | Omits a required element from something they already produce | Structural: REQUIRED field or slot in the template they fill in | Prose reminders near the template | | Behavior should depend on a condition | Conditional keyed to an observable predicate ("if the brief exists, reference it") | Unconditional rule + exemption clauses |

Why prohibitions backfire on shaping problems: under a competing incentive ("make the prompt self-contained"), agents negotiate with "don't X". In head-to-head wording tests on dispatch-prompt guidance, the prohibition arm produced clearly more of the unwanted content than the recipe arm (fully separated distributions), and trended worse than even the no-guidance control micro-test your own case rather than assuming, but never reach for the prohibition by default. A recipe leaves nothing to negotiate: the output matches the stated shape or it doesn't.

Rules for whichever form you pick:

• No nuance clauses. "Don't X unless it matters" reopens the negotiation appending a single nuance clause to a winning recipe degraded it from consistent to noisy in the same wording tests. Express a real exception as its own conditional on an observable predicate.
• Exemption clauses don't scope. "This limit doesn't apply to code blocks" still suppresses code blocks. If part of the output must be exempt, restructure so the rule can't reach it.

Bulletproofing Skills Against Rationalization

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

Scope: this toolkit is for discipline failures an agent that knows the rule and skips it under pressure. For wrong-shaped output or omitted elements, prohibition-based bulletproofing backfires; use the forms in Match the Form to the Failure instead.

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:

Write code before test? Delete it.

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

Address "Spirit vs Letter" Arguments

Add foundational principle early:

**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 SDO 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.

Micro-Test Wording Before Full Scenarios

Full pressure-scenario runs are the final gate, but they are slow and expensive per iteration. Verify the wording itself first with micro-tests:

1. One fresh-context sample per call a raw API call, or a single-shot subagent if you don't have API access. System prompt = the realistic context the guidance will live in (the full skill or prompt template, not the guidance in isolation); user message = a task that tempts the failure.
2. Always include a no-guidance control. If the control doesn't exhibit the failure, there is nothing to fix stop, don't author the guidance.
3. 5+ reps per variant. Single samples lie.
4. Manually read every flagged match. Score programmatically if you like, but template echoes and quoted counter-examples masquerade as hits; automated counts alone overstate both failure and success.
5. Variance is a metric. When guidance lands, reps converge on the same shape. Five different interpretations across five reps means the wording isn't binding tighten the form before adding words.

Micro-tests verify wording; they do not replace pressure scenarios for discipline skills.

Testing methodology: See [testing-skills-with-subagents.md](testing-skills-with-subagents.md) for the complete testing methodology:

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

Anti-Patterns

❌ Narrative Example

"I

…

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: hnikoloski
• Source: hnikoloski/imlazy
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://hnikoloski.github.io/imlazy/

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.