Initial commit

2025-11-30 08:37:11 +08:00
commit 20b36ca9b1
56 changed files with 14530 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,641 @@
+---
+name: writing-skills
+description: |
+  TDD for process documentation - write test cases (pressure scenarios), watch
+  baseline fail, write skill, iterate until bulletproof against rationalization.
+
+trigger: |
+  - Creating a new skill
+  - Editing an existing skill
+  - Skill needs to resist rationalization under pressure
+
+skip_when: |
+  - Writing pure reference skill (API docs) → no rules to test
+  - Skill has no compliance costs → no rationalization risk
+
+related:
+  complementary: [testing-skills-with-subagents]
+---
+
+# Writing Skills
+
+## Overview
+
+**Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.**
+
+**Personal skills live in agent-specific directories (e.g., `~/.claude/skills` for Claude Code, `~/.codex/skills` for Codex, or custom agent directories)** 
+
+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 ring-default: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 agent 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
+
+```markdown
+---
+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
+```
+
+
+## Agent Search Optimization (ASO)
+
+**Critical for discovery:** Future agents need to FIND your skill
+
+### 1. Rich Description Field
+
+**Purpose:** Agents read 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)
+
+```yaml
+# ❌ 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 agents 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 by skill type:**
+- **Bootstrap/Getting-started**: <150 words each (loads in every session)
+- **Simple technique skills**: <500 words (procedures, patterns, single concept)
+- **Discipline-enforcing skills**: <2,000 words (TDD, verification, systematic debugging - need rationalization tables)
+- **Process/workflow skills**: <4,000 words (multi-phase workflows with comprehensive templates)
+
+**Rationale:** Complex skills need extensive rationalization prevention and complete templates. Don't artificially compress at the cost of effectiveness.
+
+**Techniques:**
+
+**Move details to tool help:**
+```bash
+# ❌ 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:**
+```markdown
+# ❌ 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:**
+```markdown
+# ❌ 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:**
+```bash
+wc -w skills/path/SKILL.md
+# Bootstrap skills: <150 words
+# Technique skills: <500 words
+# Discipline skills: <2,000 words
+# Process skills: <4,000 words
+```
+
+**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 ring-default:test-driven-development`
+- ✅ Good: `**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand ring-default: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
+
+```dot
+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 ring-default: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:
+
+```markdown
+| 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:
+
+```markdown
+## 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:
+
+```yaml
+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.
+
+**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use ring-default:testing-skills-with-subagents 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
+"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
+```dot
+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 agents find your skill:
+
+1. **Encounters problem** ("tests are flaky")
+3. **Finds SKILL** (description matches)
+4. **Scans overview** (is this relevant?)
+5. **Reads patterns** (quick reference table)
+6. **Loads example** (only when implementing)
+
+**Optimize for this flow** - put searchable terms early and often.
+
+## 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.
--- a/skills/writing-skills/anthropic-best-practices.md
+++ b/skills/writing-skills/anthropic-best-practices.md
--- a/skills/writing-skills/graphviz-conventions.dot
+++ b/skills/writing-skills/graphviz-conventions.dot
@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+digraph STYLE_GUIDE {
+    // The style guide for our process DSL, written in the DSL itself
+
+    // Node type examples with their shapes
+    subgraph cluster_node_types {
+        label="NODE TYPES AND SHAPES";
+
+        // Questions are diamonds
+        "Is this a question?" [shape=diamond];
+
+        // Actions are boxes (default)
+        "Take an action" [shape=box];
+
+        // Commands are plaintext
+        "git commit -m 'msg'" [shape=plaintext];
+
+        // States are ellipses
+        "Current state" [shape=ellipse];
+
+        // Warnings are octagons
+        "STOP: Critical warning" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+
+        // Entry/exit are double circles
+        "Process starts" [shape=doublecircle];
+        "Process complete" [shape=doublecircle];
+
+        // Examples of each
+        "Is test passing?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Write test first" [shape=box];
+        "npm test" [shape=plaintext];
+        "I am stuck" [shape=ellipse];
+        "NEVER use git add -A" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+    }
+
+    // Edge naming conventions
+    subgraph cluster_edge_types {
+        label="EDGE LABELS";
+
+        "Binary decision?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Yes path" [shape=box];
+        "No path" [shape=box];
+
+        "Binary decision?" -> "Yes path" [label="yes"];
+        "Binary decision?" -> "No path" [label="no"];
+
+        "Multiple choice?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Option A" [shape=box];
+        "Option B" [shape=box];
+        "Option C" [shape=box];
+
+        "Multiple choice?" -> "Option A" [label="condition A"];
+        "Multiple choice?" -> "Option B" [label="condition B"];
+        "Multiple choice?" -> "Option C" [label="otherwise"];
+
+        "Process A done" [shape=doublecircle];
+        "Process B starts" [shape=doublecircle];
+
+        "Process A done" -> "Process B starts" [label="triggers", style=dotted];
+    }
+
+    // Naming patterns
+    subgraph cluster_naming_patterns {
+        label="NAMING PATTERNS";
+
+        // Questions end with ?
+        "Should I do X?";
+        "Can this be Y?";
+        "Is Z true?";
+        "Have I done W?";
+
+        // Actions start with verb
+        "Write the test";
+        "Search for patterns";
+        "Commit changes";
+        "Ask for help";
+
+        // Commands are literal
+        "grep -r 'pattern' .";
+        "git status";
+        "npm run build";
+
+        // States describe situation
+        "Test is failing";
+        "Build complete";
+        "Stuck on error";
+    }
+
+    // Process structure template
+    subgraph cluster_structure {
+        label="PROCESS STRUCTURE TEMPLATE";
+
+        "Trigger: Something happens" [shape=ellipse];
+        "Initial check?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Main action" [shape=box];
+        "git status" [shape=plaintext];
+        "Another check?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Alternative action" [shape=box];
+        "STOP: Don't do this" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+        "Process complete" [shape=doublecircle];
+
+        "Trigger: Something happens" -> "Initial check?";
+        "Initial check?" -> "Main action" [label="yes"];
+        "Initial check?" -> "Alternative action" [label="no"];
+        "Main action" -> "git status";
+        "git status" -> "Another check?";
+        "Another check?" -> "Process complete" [label="ok"];
+        "Another check?" -> "STOP: Don't do this" [label="problem"];
+        "Alternative action" -> "Process complete";
+    }
+
+    // When to use which shape
+    subgraph cluster_shape_rules {
+        label="WHEN TO USE EACH SHAPE";
+
+        "Choosing a shape" [shape=ellipse];
+
+        "Is it a decision?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use diamond" [shape=diamond, style=filled, fillcolor=lightblue];
+
+        "Is it a command?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use plaintext" [shape=plaintext, style=filled, fillcolor=lightgray];
+
+        "Is it a warning?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use octagon" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=pink];
+
+        "Is it entry/exit?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use doublecircle" [shape=doublecircle, style=filled, fillcolor=lightgreen];
+
+        "Is it a state?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Use ellipse" [shape=ellipse, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
+
+        "Default: use box" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor=lightcyan];
+
+        "Choosing a shape" -> "Is it a decision?";
+        "Is it a decision?" -> "Use diamond" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it a decision?" -> "Is it a command?" [label="no"];
+        "Is it a command?" -> "Use plaintext" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it a command?" -> "Is it a warning?" [label="no"];
+        "Is it a warning?" -> "Use octagon" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it a warning?" -> "Is it entry/exit?" [label="no"];
+        "Is it entry/exit?" -> "Use doublecircle" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it entry/exit?" -> "Is it a state?" [label="no"];
+        "Is it a state?" -> "Use ellipse" [label="yes"];
+        "Is it a state?" -> "Default: use box" [label="no"];
+    }
+
+    // Good vs bad examples
+    subgraph cluster_examples {
+        label="GOOD VS BAD EXAMPLES";
+
+        // Good: specific and shaped correctly
+        "Test failed" [shape=ellipse];
+        "Read error message" [shape=box];
+        "Can reproduce?" [shape=diamond];
+        "git diff HEAD~1" [shape=plaintext];
+        "NEVER ignore errors" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
+
+        "Test failed" -> "Read error message";
+        "Read error message" -> "Can reproduce?";
+        "Can reproduce?" -> "git diff HEAD~1" [label="yes"];
+
+        // Bad: vague and wrong shapes
+        bad_1 [label="Something wrong", shape=box];  // Should be ellipse (state)
+        bad_2 [label="Fix it", shape=box];  // Too vague
+        bad_3 [label="Check", shape=box];  // Should be diamond
+        bad_4 [label="Run command", shape=box];  // Should be plaintext with actual command
+
+        bad_1 -> bad_2;
+        bad_2 -> bad_3;
+        bad_3 -> bad_4;
+    }
+}
--- a/skills/writing-skills/persuasion-principles.md
+++ b/skills/writing-skills/persuasion-principles.md
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+# Persuasion Principles for Skill Design
+
+## Overview
+
+LLMs respond to the same persuasion principles as humans. Understanding this psychology helps you design more effective skills - not to manipulate, but to ensure critical practices are followed even under pressure.
+
+**Research foundation:** Meincke et al. (2025) tested 7 persuasion principles with N=28,000 AI conversations. Persuasion techniques more than doubled compliance rates (33% → 72%, p < .001).
+
+## The Seven Principles
+
+### 1. Authority
+**What it is:** Deference to expertise, credentials, or official sources.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Imperative language: "YOU MUST", "Never", "Always"
+- Non-negotiable framing: "No exceptions"
+- Eliminates decision fatigue and rationalization
+
+**When to use:**
+- Discipline-enforcing skills (TDD, verification requirements)
+- Safety-critical practices
+- Established best practices
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ Write code before test? Delete it. Start over. No exceptions.
+❌ Consider writing tests first when feasible.
+```
+
+### 2. Commitment
+**What it is:** Consistency with prior actions, statements, or public declarations.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Require announcements: "Announce skill usage"
+- Force explicit choices: "Choose A, B, or C"
+- Use tracking: TodoWrite for checklists
+
+**When to use:**
+- Ensuring skills are actually followed
+- Multi-step processes
+- Accountability mechanisms
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ When you find a skill, you MUST announce: "I'm using [Skill Name]"
+❌ Consider letting your partner know which skill you're using.
+```
+
+### 3. Scarcity
+**What it is:** Urgency from time limits or limited availability.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Time-bound requirements: "Before proceeding"
+- Sequential dependencies: "Immediately after X"
+- Prevents procrastination
+
+**When to use:**
+- Immediate verification requirements
+- Time-sensitive workflows
+- Preventing "I'll do it later"
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ After completing a task, IMMEDIATELY request code review before proceeding.
+❌ You can review code when convenient.
+```
+
+### 4. Social Proof
+**What it is:** Conformity to what others do or what's considered normal.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Universal patterns: "Every time", "Always"
+- Failure modes: "X without Y = failure"
+- Establishes norms
+
+**When to use:**
+- Documenting universal practices
+- Warning about common failures
+- Reinforcing standards
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ Checklists without TodoWrite tracking = steps get skipped. Every time.
+❌ Some people find TodoWrite helpful for checklists.
+```
+
+### 5. Unity
+**What it is:** Shared identity, "we-ness", in-group belonging.
+
+**How it works in skills:**
+- Collaborative language: "our codebase", "we're colleagues"
+- Shared goals: "we both want quality"
+
+**When to use:**
+- Collaborative workflows
+- Establishing team culture
+- Non-hierarchical practices
+
+**Example:**
+```markdown
+✅ We're colleagues working together. I need your honest technical judgment.
+❌ You should probably tell me if I'm wrong.
+```
+
+### 6. Reciprocity
+**What it is:** Obligation to return benefits received.
+
+**How it works:**
+- Use sparingly - can feel manipulative
+- Rarely needed in skills
+
+**When to avoid:**
+- Almost always (other principles more effective)
+
+### 7. Liking
+**What it is:** Preference for cooperating with those we like.
+
+**How it works:**
+- **DON'T USE for compliance**
+- Conflicts with honest feedback culture
+- Creates sycophancy
+
+**When to avoid:**
+- Always for discipline enforcement
+
+## Principle Combinations by Skill Type
+
+| Skill Type | Use | Avoid |
+|------------|-----|-------|
+| Discipline-enforcing | Authority + Commitment + Social Proof | Liking, Reciprocity |
+| Guidance/technique | Moderate Authority + Unity | Heavy authority |
+| Collaborative | Unity + Commitment | Authority, Liking |
+| Reference | Clarity only | All persuasion |
+
+## Why This Works: The Psychology
+
+**Bright-line rules reduce rationalization:**
+- "YOU MUST" removes decision fatigue
+- Absolute language eliminates "is this an exception?" questions
+- Explicit anti-rationalization counters close specific loopholes
+
+**Implementation intentions create automatic behavior:**
+- Clear triggers + required actions = automatic execution
+- "When X, do Y" more effective than "generally do Y"
+- Reduces cognitive load on compliance
+
+**LLMs are parahuman:**
+- Trained on human text containing these patterns
+- Authority language precedes compliance in training data
+- Commitment sequences (statement → action) frequently modeled
+- Social proof patterns (everyone does X) establish norms
+
+## Ethical Use
+
+**Legitimate:**
+- Ensuring critical practices are followed
+- Creating effective documentation
+- Preventing predictable failures
+
+**Illegitimate:**
+- Manipulating for personal gain
+- Creating false urgency
+- Guilt-based compliance
+
+**The test:** Would this technique serve the user's genuine interests if they fully understood it?
+
+## Research Citations
+
+**Cialdini, R. B. (2021).** *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (New and Expanded).* Harper Business.
+- Seven principles of persuasion
+- Empirical foundation for influence research
+
+**Meincke, L., Shapiro, D., Duckworth, A. L., Mollick, E., Mollick, L., & Cialdini, R. (2025).** Call Me A Jerk: Persuading AI to Comply with Objectionable Requests. University of Pennsylvania.
+- Tested 7 principles with N=28,000 LLM conversations
+- Compliance increased 33% → 72% with persuasion techniques
+- Authority, commitment, scarcity most effective
+- Validates parahuman model of LLM behavior
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+When designing a skill, ask:
+
+1. **What type is it?** (Discipline vs. guidance vs. reference)
+2. **What behavior am I trying to change?**
+3. **Which principle(s) apply?** (Usually authority + commitment for discipline)
+4. **Am I combining too many?** (Don't use all seven)
+5. **Is this ethical?** (Serves user's genuine interests?)