Skill Author

skill-author

Author a new skill, the right way. Routed to when the user invokes /new-skill "<gap>".

Pre-flight

Read these, or STOP and surface the gap — never author on assumption:

• The <gap> argument. Absent → STOP and ask: "Describe the gap this skill would fill. What situation does no existing skill cover today?"
• ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/routines/INDEX.md — the surface scan of every existing skill. This is the gap-overlap check in Phase 1 and the integration target in Phase 5. Never bulk-read the skill bodies.
• ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/routines/commit-gate/SKILL.md and ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/routines/tdd/SKILL.md — the canonical v2 format the authored skill must mirror. Read them before Phase 3.
• <project-root>/.codearbiter/CONTEXT.md — project context, only if the gap is project-specific. A generic skill needs no project state.

Phase 1 — Gap evidence · gate: BLOCK

A new skill is permanent surface area. It is not written until the gap is proven real and proven uncovered.

Restate the gap in one sentence. Then scan INDEX.md for overlap: if an existing skill's "Owns" column already covers this, STOP and name it — "The <name> skill already owns this; review it before requesting a new one."

If no skill covers it, demand evidence — one of:

• A — three specific cases where the gap blocked work: what was attempted, what happened with no skill, what it cost.
• B — one high-impact case with traceable evidence: a blocked PR, an introduced defect, a compliance finding, a repeated failure pattern.

Hypothetical cases do not count. Fewer than three (Option A) or no traceable evidence (Option B) → STOP and decline: "Insufficient evidence of a real, recurring gap. A skill adds permanent maintenance cost. Return with evidence and I'll author it."

Gate: the gap is restated, proven uncovered against INDEX.md, and backed by Option-A or Option-B evidence. Speculation does not pass.

Phase 2 — Scope · gate: BLOCK

Settle scope with the user before any prose is written. Ask, and wait for an explicit answer:

• Routed or dispatched? A *skill* is routed to (gated phases, lives at ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/routines/<name>/SKILL.md). An *agent* is dispatched by a skill (a reviewer/author, lives at ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/<name>.md). If the gap is really a reviewer, this is the wrong skill — redirect to agent authoring.
• Command-invoked or internal? Does a user type /<name> to reach it, or does another skill route to it mid-workflow? A command needs a routing-table entry; an internal skill needs a named parent that routes to it.
• Single responsibility. State the one thing the skill owns in a sentence. If it needs "and" to describe its job, it is two skills — split it or pick one.

Confirm back: "I will write a [command-invoked / internal] skill at ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/routines/<name>/SKILL.md, owning <one responsibility>. [A /<name> command will be added to the routing table. / The <parent> skill will route to it.]"

Gate: explicit user agreement on routed-vs-dispatched, command-vs-internal, and a one-sentence single responsibility. Assumed answers do not pass.

Phase 3 — Authoring · gate: BLOCK

Write SKILL.md to the v2 house style — mirror commit-gate and tdd exactly. Start from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/routines/skill-author/references/skill-template.md. Required shape:

• Frontmatter — name: and description: only. Description is terse: what routes to it, the phase count, the gate. No cut doc refs, no trigger disclaimer.
• # <name> H1, then a one-line intro naming what routes to it (/<command> or the parent skill).
• ## Pre-flight — the docs to read or STOP on. Project state cites <project-root>/.codearbiter/<doc>; other skills cite ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/routines/<name>; agents cite ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/<name>.md. Never guess a command — read it or STOP.
• ## Phase N — <title> · gate: BLOCK|STOP — sequential, each ending in a one-line Gate:. A phase with output that could be wrong has a gate; only a purely declarative phase may omit one.
• ## Hard rules — MUST NOT lines, one per rule, no duplication.

Authoring rules:

• Imperative, terse, no hedging. No "should", no "if it looks wrong". A gate is a concrete, checkable condition.
• Surviving project docs only: CONTEXT.md, tech-stack.md, coding-standards.md, specs/, plans/, security-controls.md, decisions/, overrides.log. Do not reference cut docs or cut skills.
• Terminology lock: a skill is *routed to*; an agent is *dispatched*. Never "trigger", "fires", or "runs".
• An out-of-scope finding gets one line with an inline [NEEDS-TRIAGE] marker.

Phase 4 — Self-review · gate: BLOCK

Re-read the authored skill against the v2 quality bar. Each line below is a checkable defect, not a vibe:

• Single responsibility — the skill owns one thing. If a phase belongs to a different job, it is the wrong skill; cut it.
• Concrete gates — every non-declarative phase ends in a Gate: line stating a checkable condition. "Looks good" / "seems right" is not a gate; rewrite it.
• House-style prose — terse, imperative, matches commit-gate/tdd. Strip hedging and filler.
• No duplicated rules — a rule stated in a phase is not restated in Hard rules, and Hard rules carry no duplicates. State each rule once.
• Format conformance — frontmatter is name+description only; H1 matches name; phases are numbered with · gate:; paths use ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} / <project-root> correctly; no cut docs/skills, no legacy ${FRAMEWORK_ROOT}/${PROJECT_ROOT}/.agents/ paths.
• No trigger language — "routed to" / "dispatched" only, and no ## Trigger disclaimer block.

Compile the findings, fix each, and re-read once. Present the corrected skill and the findings list to the user.

Gate: zero open self-review defects, and the user has seen the corrected skill. An unaddressed defect blocks Phase 5.

Phase 5 — Routing integration · gate: BLOCK

A skill no one routes to is dead code. Wire it in.

• Add a row to ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/routines/INDEX.md: skill name (linked), "Routed to by", and "Owns" (the one-sentence responsibility from Phase 2).
• Add the skill to the routing table — the invocation cue (the /<command> or condition), the primary route, any dispatched agents, the hard gate. For a command-invoked skill, also register the /<command> in the command reference.
• For an internal skill, update the named parent so it routes to the new skill explicitly.

Verify no broken references: every path the skill cites resolves, and the INDEX.md row matches the file.

Hand off to commit-gate — never git commit directly. The skill change ships only through the commit gate.

Gate: INDEX.md and the routing table updated, no broken references, and the change handed to commit-gate.

Hard rules

• MUST NOT author a skill before the gap is proven uncovered against INDEX.md and backed by Option-A or Option-B evidence.
• MUST NOT begin authoring without explicit user agreement on scope (routed-vs-dispatched, command-vs-internal, single responsibility).
• MUST NOT emit a skill whose phases lack concrete Gate: lines, or whose Hard rules duplicate phase rules.
• MUST NOT use trigger language ("trigger", "fires", "runs") or a ## Trigger disclaimer — a skill is routed to, an agent dispatched.
• MUST NOT reference a cut doc, cut skill, or a legacy .agents/ / ${FRAMEWORK_ROOT} / ${PROJECT_ROOT} path in an authored skill.
• MUST NOT ship a skill without an INDEX.md row and a routing entry.
• MUST NOT commit the new skill directly — hand off to commit-gate.