skill-creator

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

10 scripts

Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch for Claude Code or Cursor, update or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.

12installs

Sourcecognitedata/dune-skills

Added on2026-04-21

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add cognitedata/dune-skills skill-creator

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Skill Creator

A skill for creating new skills and iteratively improving them.

At a high level, the process of creating a skill goes like this:

Decide what you want the skill to do and roughly how it should do it
Write a draft of the skill
Create a few test prompts and run the agent with access to the skill on them
Help the user evaluate the results both qualitatively and quantitatively
- While the runs happen in the background, draft some quantitative evals if there aren't any (if there are some, you can either use as is or modify if you feel something needs to change about them). Then explain them to the user (or if they already existed, explain the ones that already exist)
- Use the
```
eval-viewer/generate_review.py
```
  script to show the user the results for them to look at, and also let them look at the quantitative metrics
Rewrite the skill based on feedback from the user's evaluation of the results (and also if there are any glaring flaws that become apparent from the quantitative benchmarks)
Repeat until you're satisfied
Expand the test set and try again at larger scale

Your job when using this skill is to figure out where the user is in this process and then jump in and help them progress through these stages. So for instance, maybe they're like "I want to make a skill for X". You can help narrow down what they mean, write a draft, write the test cases, figure out how they want to evaluate, run all the prompts, and repeat.

On the other hand, maybe they already have a draft of the skill. In this case you can go straight to the eval/iterate part of the loop.

Of course, you should always be flexible and if the user is like "I don't need to run a bunch of evaluations, just vibe with me", you can do that instead.

Then after the skill is done (but again, the order is flexible), you can also run the skill description improver, which we have a whole separate script for, to optimize the triggering of the skill.

Cool? Cool.

Communicating with the user

The skill creator is liable to be used by people across a wide range of familiarity with coding jargon. If you haven't heard (and how could you, it's only very recently that it started), there's a trend now where the power of Claude is inspiring plumbers to open up their terminals, parents and grandparents to google "how to install npm". On the other hand, the bulk of users are probably fairly computer-literate.

So please pay attention to context cues to understand how to phrase your communication! In the default case, just to give you some idea:

"evaluation" and "benchmark" are borderline, but OK
for "JSON" and "assertion" you want to see serious cues from the user that they know what those things are before using them without explaining them

It's OK to briefly explain terms if you're in doubt, and feel free to clarify terms with a short definition if you're unsure if the user will get it.

Creating a skill

Capture Intent

Start by understanding the user's intent. The current conversation might already contain a workflow the user wants to capture (e.g., they say "turn this into a skill"). If so, extract answers from the conversation history first — the tools used, the sequence of steps, corrections the user made, input/output formats observed. The user may need to fill the gaps, and should confirm before proceeding to the next step.

What should this skill enable the AI agent to do?
When should this skill trigger? (what user phrases/contexts)
What's the expected output format?
Should we set up test cases to verify the skill works? Skills with objectively verifiable outputs (file transforms, data extraction, code generation, fixed workflow steps) benefit from test cases. Skills with subjective outputs (writing style, art) often don't need them. Suggest the appropriate default based on the skill type, but let the user decide.
What tool is this skill for? (Claude Code, Cursor, or both?)

Target Platform

The SKILL.md format is identical for both Claude Code and Cursor — same YAML frontmatter, same directory structure. The key differences:

Claude Code discovers skills from
```
.claude/skills/
```

Cursor discovers skills from

.cursor/skills/

.agents/skills/

~/.cursor/skills/

, and

.claude/skills/

(legacy)

Cross-platform: Place skills in
```
.agents/skills/
```
to be discovered by both tools
Cursor-only field:
```
disable-model-invocation: true
```
in frontmatter makes the skill invokable only via
```
/skill-name
```
(no auto-triggering)

When creating a skill for both platforms, avoid referencing tool-specific features in the skill body (e.g., Claude's Skill tool vs Cursor's

/skill-name

invocation).

Interview and Research

Proactively ask questions about edge cases, input/output formats, example files, success criteria, and dependencies. Wait to write test prompts until you've got this part ironed out.

Check available MCPs - if useful for research (searching docs, finding similar skills, looking up best practices), research in parallel via subagents if available, otherwise inline. Come prepared with context to reduce burden on the user.

Write the SKILL.md

Based on the user interview, fill in these components:

name: Skill identifier
description: When to trigger, what it does. This is the primary triggering mechanism - include both what the skill does AND specific contexts for when to use it. All "when to use" info goes here, not in the body. Note: currently AI agents (both Claude and Cursor) have a tendency to "undertrigger" skills -- to not use them when they'd be useful. To combat this, please make the skill descriptions a little bit "pushy". So for instance, instead of "How to build a simple fast dashboard to display internal Anthropic data.", you might write "How to build a simple fast dashboard to display internal Anthropic data. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user mentions dashboards, data visualization, internal metrics, or wants to display any kind of company data, even if they don't explicitly ask for a 'dashboard.'"
compatibility: Required tools, dependencies (optional, rarely needed)
the rest of the skill :)

Skill Writing Guide

Anatomy of a Skill

skill-name/
├── SKILL.md (required)
│   ├── YAML frontmatter (name, description required)
│   └── Markdown instructions
└── Bundled Resources (optional)
    ├── scripts/    - Executable code for deterministic/repetitive tasks
    ├── references/ - Docs loaded into context as needed
    └── assets/     - Files used in output (templates, icons, fonts)

Progressive Disclosure

Skills use a three-level loading system:

Metadata (name + description) - Always in context (~100 words)
SKILL.md body - In context whenever skill triggers (<500 lines ideal)
Bundled resources - As needed (unlimited, scripts can execute without loading)

These word counts are approximate and you can feel free to go longer if needed.

Key patterns:

Keep SKILL.md under 500 lines; if you're approaching this limit, add an additional layer of hierarchy along with clear pointers about where the model using the skill should go next to follow up.
Reference files clearly from SKILL.md with guidance on when to read them
For large reference files (>300 lines), include a table of contents

Domain organization: When a skill supports multiple domains/frameworks, organize by variant:

cloud-deploy/
├── SKILL.md (workflow + selection)
└── references/
    ├── aws.md
    ├── gcp.md
    └── azure.md

Claude reads only the relevant reference file.

Principle of Lack of Surprise

This goes without saying, but skills must not contain malware, exploit code, or any content that could compromise system security. A skill's contents should not surprise the user in their intent if described. Don't go along with requests to create misleading skills or skills designed to facilitate unauthorized access, data exfiltration, or other malicious activities. Things like a "roleplay as an XYZ" are OK though.

Writing Patterns

Prefer using the imperative form in instructions.

Defining output formats - You can do it like this:

markdown

## Report structure
ALWAYS use this exact template:
# [Title]
## Executive summary
## Key findings
## Recommendations

Examples pattern - It's useful to include examples. You can format them like this (but if "Input" and "Output" are in the examples you might want to deviate a little):

markdown

## Commit message format
**Example 1:**
Input: Added user authentication with JWT tokens
Output: feat(auth): implement JWT-based authentication

Writing Style

Try to explain to the model why things are important in lieu of heavy-handed musty MUSTs. Use theory of mind and try to make the skill general and not super-narrow to specific examples. Start by writing a draft and then look at it with fresh eyes and improve it.

Test Cases

After writing the skill draft, come up with 2-3 realistic test prompts — the kind of thing a real user would actually say. Share them with the user: [you don't have to use this exact language] "Here are a few test cases I'd like to try. Do these look right, or do you want to add more?" Then run them.

Save test cases to

evals/evals.json

. Don't write assertions yet — just the prompts. You'll draft assertions in the next step while the runs are in progress.

json

{
  "skill_name": "example-skill",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "prompt": "User's task prompt",
      "expected_output": "Description of expected result",
      "files": []
    }
  ]
}

See

references/schemas.md

for the full schema (including the

assertions

field, which you'll add later).

Running and evaluating test cases

This section is one continuous sequence — don't stop partway through. Do NOT use

/skill-test

or any other testing skill.

Put results in

<skill-name>-workspace/

as a sibling to the skill directory. Within the workspace, organize results by iteration (

iteration-1/

iteration-2/

, etc.) and within that, each test case gets a directory (

eval-0/

eval-1/

, etc.). Don't create all of this upfront — just create directories as you go.

Step 1: Spawn all runs (with-skill AND baseline) in the same turn

For each test case, spawn two runs — one with the skill, one without.

In Claude Code (with subagents): spawn all runs in the same turn so everything finishes around the same time. Don't spawn with-skill runs first and baselines later.

In Cursor (no subagents): run test cases sequentially — read the skill, follow its instructions for each test prompt. This is less rigorous but the human review step compensates.

With-skill run:

Execute this task:
- Skill path: <path-to-skill>
- Task: <eval prompt>
- Input files: <eval files if any, or "none">
- Save outputs to: <workspace>/iteration-<N>/eval-<ID>/with_skill/outputs/
- Outputs to save: <what the user cares about — e.g., "the .docx file", "the final CSV">

Baseline run (same prompt, but the baseline depends on context):

Creating a new skill: no skill at all. Same prompt, no skill path, save to
```
without_skill/outputs/
```
.
Improving an existing skill: the old version. Before editing, snapshot the skill (
```
cp -r <skill-path> <workspace>/skill-snapshot/
```
), then point the baseline subagent at the snapshot. Save to
```
old_skill/outputs/
```
.

Write an

eval_metadata.json

for each test case (assertions can be empty for now). Give each eval a descriptive name based on what it's testing — not just "eval-0". Use this name for the directory too. If this iteration uses new or modified eval prompts, create these files for each new eval directory — don't assume they carry over from previous iterations.

json

{
  "eval_id": 0,
  "eval_name": "descriptive-name-here",
  "prompt": "The user's task prompt",
  "assertions": []
}

Step 2: While runs are in progress, draft assertions

Don't just wait for the runs to finish — you can use this time productively. Draft quantitative assertions for each test case and explain them to the user. If assertions already exist in

evals/evals.json

, review them and explain what they check.

Good assertions are objectively verifiable and have descriptive names — they should read clearly in the benchmark viewer so someone glancing at the results immediately understands what each one checks. Subjective skills (writing style, design quality) are better evaluated qualitatively — don't force assertions onto things that need human judgment.

Update the

eval_metadata.json

files and

evals/evals.json

with the assertions once drafted. Also explain to the user what they'll see in the viewer — both the qualitative outputs and the quantitative benchmark.

Step 3: As runs complete, capture timing data

When each subagent task completes, you receive a notification containing

total_tokens

and

duration_ms

. Save this data immediately to

timing.json

in the run directory:

json

{
  "total_tokens": 84852,
  "duration_ms": 23332,
  "total_duration_seconds": 23.3
}

This is the only opportunity to capture this data — it comes through the task notification and isn't persisted elsewhere. Process each notification as it arrives rather than trying to batch them.

Step 4: Grade — use agents/grader.md, not a custom script

Programmatic checks (file existence, line counts, string matching) are useful as a supplement, but they only catch structural compliance. The grader agent catches things scripts can't: content quality, claim verification, and weak assertions that create false confidence. A skill can produce every file in the right place and still have terrible content — the grader is what catches that. Do NOT generate the viewer or benchmark until

grading.json

exists for every run.

Once all runs are done:

Grade each run — spawn a grader subagent (or grade inline) that reads
```
agents/grader.md
```
and evaluates each assertion against the outputs. Save results to
```
grading.json
```
in each run directory. The grading.json expectations array must use the fields
```
text
```
,
```
passed
```
, and
```
evidence
```
(not
```
name
```
/
```
met
```
/
```
details
```
or other variants) — the viewer depends on these exact field names. You can run programmatic checks as a supplement to the grader (scripts are faster and reusable for things like file existence or line counts), but they do not replace the grader agent — always run the grader first for qualitative assessment.
Aggregate into benchmark — run the aggregation script from the skill-creator directory:
bash
```
python -m scripts.aggregate_benchmark <workspace>/iteration-N --skill-name <name>
```
This produces
```
benchmark.json
```
and
```
benchmark.md
```
with pass_rate, time, and tokens for each configuration, with mean ± stddev and the delta. If generating benchmark.json manually, see
```
references/schemas.md
```
for the exact schema the viewer expects. Put each with_skill version before its baseline counterpart.
Do an analyst pass — read the benchmark data and surface patterns the aggregate stats might hide. See
```
agents/analyzer.md
```
(the "Analyzing Benchmark Results" section) for what to look for — things like assertions that always pass regardless of skill (non-discriminating), high-variance evals (possibly flaky), and time/token tradeoffs.
Launch the viewer with both qualitative outputs and quantitative data:
bash
```
nohup python <skill-creator-path>/eval-viewer/generate_review.py \
  <workspace>/iteration-N \
  --skill-name "my-skill" \
  --benchmark <workspace>/iteration-N/benchmark.json \
  > /dev/null 2>&1 &
VIEWER_PID=$!
```
For iteration 2+, also pass
```
--previous-workspace <workspace>/iteration-<N-1>
```
.
Headless environments: If
```
webbrowser.open()
```
is not available or the environment has no display, use
```
--static <output_path>
```
to write a standalone HTML file instead of starting a server. Feedback will be downloaded as a
```
feedback.json
```
file when the user clicks "Submit All Reviews". After download, copy
```
feedback.json
```
into the workspace directory for the next iteration to pick up.

Note: please use generate_review.py to create the viewer; there's no need to write custom HTML.

Tell the user something like: "I've opened the results in your browser. There are two tabs — 'Outputs' lets you click through each test case and leave feedback, 'Benchmark' shows the quantitative comparison. When you're done, come back here and let me know."

What the user sees in the viewer

The "Outputs" tab shows one test case at a time:

Prompt: the task that was given
Output: the files the skill produced, rendered inline where possible
Previous Output (iteration 2+): collapsed section showing last iteration's output
Formal Grades (if grading was run): collapsed section showing assertion pass/fail
Feedback: a textbox that auto-saves as they type
Previous Feedback (iteration 2+): their comments from last time, shown below the textbox

The "Benchmark" tab shows the stats summary: pass rates, timing, and token usage for each configuration, with per-eval breakdowns and analyst observations.

Navigation is via prev/next buttons or arrow keys. When done, they click "Submit All Reviews" which saves all feedback to

feedback.json

Step 5: Read the feedback

When the user tells you they're done, read

feedback.json

json

{
  "reviews": [
    {"run_id": "eval-0-with_skill", "feedback": "the chart is missing axis labels", "timestamp": "..."},
    {"run_id": "eval-1-with_skill", "feedback": "", "timestamp": "..."},
    {"run_id": "eval-2-with_skill", "feedback": "perfect, love this", "timestamp": "..."}
  ],
  "status": "complete"
}

Empty feedback means the user thought it was fine. Focus your improvements on the test cases where the user had specific complaints.

Kill the viewer server when you're done with it:

bash

kill $VIEWER_PID 2>/dev/null

Improving the skill

This is the heart of the loop. You've run the test cases, the user has reviewed the results, and now you need to make the skill better based on their feedback.

How to think about improvements

Generalize from the feedback. The big picture thing that's happening here is that we're trying to create skills that can be used a million times (maybe literally, maybe even more who knows) across many different prompts. Here you and the user are iterating on only a few examples over and over again because it helps move faster. The user knows these examples in and out and it's quick for them to assess new outputs. But if the skill you and the user are codeveloping works only for those examples, it's useless. Rather than put in fiddly overfitty changes, or oppressively constrictive MUSTs, if there's some stubborn issue, you might try branching out and using different metaphors, or recommending different patterns of working. It's relatively cheap to try and maybe you'll land on something great.
Keep the prompt lean. Remove things that aren't pulling their weight. Make sure to read the transcripts, not just the final outputs — if it looks like the skill is making the model waste a bunch of time doing things that are unproductive, you can try getting rid of the parts of the skill that are making it do that and seeing what happens.
Explain the why. Try hard to explain the why behind everything you're asking the model to do. Today's LLMs are smart. They have good theory of mind and when given a good harness can go beyond rote instructions and really make things happen. Even if the feedback from the user is terse or frustrated, try to actually understand the task and why the user is writing what they wrote, and what they actually wrote, and then transmit this understanding into the instructions. If you find yourself writing ALWAYS or NEVER in all caps, or using super rigid structures, that's a yellow flag — if possible, reframe and explain the reasoning so that the model understands why the thing you're asking for is important. That's a more humane, powerful, and effective approach.
Look for repeated work across test cases. Read the transcripts from the test runs and notice if the subagents all independently wrote similar helper scripts or took the same multi-step approach to something. If all 3 test cases resulted in the subagent writing a
```
create_docx.py
```
or a
```
build_chart.py
```
, that's a strong signal the skill should bundle that script. Write it once, put it in
```
scripts/
```
, and tell the skill to use it. This saves every future invocation from reinventing the wheel.

This task is pretty important (we are trying to create billions a year in economic value here!) and your thinking time is not the blocker; take your time and really mull things over. I'd suggest writing a draft revision and then looking at it anew and making improvements. Really do your best to get into the head of the user and understand what they want and need.

The iteration loop

After improving the skill:

Apply your improvements to the skill
Rerun all test cases into a new
```
iteration-<N+1>/
```
directory, including baseline runs. If you're creating a new skill, the baseline is always
```
without_skill
```
(no skill) — that stays the same across iterations. If you're improving an existing skill, use your judgment on what makes sense as the baseline: the original version the user came in with, or the previous iteration.
Launch the reviewer with
```
--previous-workspace
```
pointing at the previous iteration
Wait for the user to review and tell you they're done
Read the new feedback, improve again, repeat

Keep going until:

The user says they're happy
The feedback is all empty (everything looks good)
You're not making meaningful progress

Advanced: Blind comparison

For situations where you want a more rigorous comparison between two versions of a skill (e.g., the user asks "is the new version actually better?"), there's a blind comparison system. Read

agents/comparator.md

and

agents/analyzer.md

for the details. The basic idea is: give two outputs to an independent agent without telling it which is which, and let it judge quality. Then analyze why the winner won.

This is optional, requires subagents, and most users won't need it. The human review loop is usually sufficient.

Description Optimization

The description field in SKILL.md frontmatter is the primary mechanism that determines whether Claude invokes a skill. After creating or improving a skill, offer to optimize the description for better triggering accuracy.

Step 1: Generate trigger eval queries

Create 20 eval queries — a mix of should-trigger and should-not-trigger. Save as JSON:

json

[
  {"query": "the user prompt", "should_trigger": true},
  {"query": "another prompt", "should_trigger": false}
]

The queries must be realistic and something a Claude Code or Cursor user would actually type. Not abstract requests, but requests that are concrete and specific and have a good amount of detail. For instance, file paths, personal context about the user's job or situation, column names and values, company names, URLs. A little bit of backstory. Some might be in lowercase or contain abbreviations or typos or casual speech. Use a mix of different lengths, and focus on edge cases rather than making them clear-cut (the user will get a chance to sign off on them).

Bad:

"Format this data"

"Extract text from PDF"

"Create a chart"

Good:

"ok so my boss just sent me this xlsx file (its in my downloads, called something like 'Q4 sales final FINAL v2.xlsx') and she wants me to add a column that shows the profit margin as a percentage. The revenue is in column C and costs are in column D i think"

For the should-trigger queries (8-10), think about coverage. You want different phrasings of the same intent — some formal, some casual. Include cases where the user doesn't explicitly name the skill or file type but clearly needs it. Throw in some uncommon use cases and cases where this skill competes with another but should win.

For the should-not-trigger queries (8-10), the most valuable ones are the near-misses — queries that share keywords or concepts with the skill but actually need something different. Think adjacent domains, ambiguous phrasing where a naive keyword match would trigger but shouldn't, and cases where the query touches on something the skill does but in a context where another tool is more appropriate.

The key thing to avoid: don't make should-not-trigger queries obviously irrelevant. "Write a fibonacci function" as a negative test for a PDF skill is too easy — it doesn't test anything. The negative cases should be genuinely tricky.

Step 2: Review with user

Present the eval set to the user for review using the HTML template:

Read the template from
```
assets/eval_review.html
```
Replace the placeholders:
- ```
__EVAL_DATA_PLACEHOLDER__
```
  → the JSON array of eval items (no quotes around it — it's a JS variable assignment)
- ```
__SKILL_NAME_PLACEHOLDER__
```
  → the skill's name
- ```
__SKILL_DESCRIPTION_PLACEHOLDER__
```
  → the skill's current description

Write to a temp file (e.g.,

/tmp/eval_review_<skill-name>.html

) and open it:

open /tmp/eval_review_<skill-name>.html

The user can edit queries, toggle should-trigger, add/remove entries, then click "Export Eval Set"
The file downloads to
```
~/Downloads/eval_set.json
```
— check the Downloads folder for the most recent version in case there are multiple (e.g.,
```
eval_set (1).json
```
)

This step matters — bad eval queries lead to bad descriptions.

Step 3: Run the optimization loop

API Key Prerequisite: Ensure credentials are loaded before running. Follow the steps in the API Credentials section above — check env vars, source

.env

, or ask the user to create one if missing.

Tell the user: "This will take some time — I'll run the optimization loop in the background and check on it periodically."

Save the eval set to the workspace, then run in the background:

bash

source .env && python -m scripts.run_loop \
  --eval-set <path-to-trigger-eval.json> \
  --skill-path <path-to-skill> \
  --model ${SKILL_MODEL} \
  --platform <claude|cursor> \
  --max-iterations 5 \
  --verbose

Use

$SKILL_MODEL

from

.env

. If it's not set, fall back to the model ID from your system prompt (the one powering the current session) so the triggering test matches what the user actually experiences. Set

--platform cursor

for Cursor skills (uses LLM simulation instead of

claude -p

CLI).

While it runs, periodically tail the output to give the user updates on which iteration it's on and what the scores look like.

This handles the full optimization loop automatically. It splits the eval set into 60% train and 40% held-out test, evaluates the current description (running each query 3 times to get a reliable trigger rate), then calls Claude with extended thinking to propose improvements based on what failed. It re-evaluates each new description on both train and test, iterating up to 5 times. When it's done, it opens an HTML report in the browser showing the results per iteration and returns JSON with

best_description

— selected by test score rather than train score to avoid overfitting.

How skill triggering works

Understanding the triggering mechanism helps design better eval queries. Skills appear in the agent's

available_skills

list with their name + description, and the agent decides whether to consult a skill based on that description. The important thing to know is that AI agents only consult skills for tasks they can't easily handle on their own — simple, one-step queries like "read this PDF" may not trigger a skill even if the description matches perfectly, because the agent can handle them directly with basic tools. Complex, multi-step, or specialized queries reliably trigger skills when the description matches.

This means your eval queries should be substantive enough that Claude would actually benefit from consulting a skill. Simple queries like "read file X" are poor test cases — they won't trigger skills regardless of description quality.

Step 4: Apply the result

Take

best_description

from the JSON output and update the skill's SKILL.md frontmatter. Show the user before/after and report the scores.

Package and Present (only if

present_files

tool is available)

Check whether you have access to the

present_files

tool. If you don't, skip this step. If you do, package the skill and present the .skill file to the user:

bash

python -m scripts.package_skill <path/to/skill-folder>

After packaging, direct the user to the resulting

.skill

file path so they can install it.

Cursor-Specific Instructions

When running inside Cursor:

The core workflow is the same: draft, test, review, improve, repeat
Cursor does not have subagents. Run test cases sequentially — read the skill's SKILL.md, then follow its instructions to accomplish the test prompt yourself, one at a time.

Use

--platform cursor

for all Python scripts (

run_eval

run_loop

improve_description

package_skill

Description optimization uses LLM simulation rather than CLI testing. The simulation asks a model "would you invoke this skill given this query?" — it's directionally accurate for comparing descriptions but not a perfect proxy for Cursor's actual runtime behavior.
Cursor supports the
```
disable-model-invocation: true
```
frontmatter field — set this for skills that should only be invokable via
```
/skill-name
```
and never auto-triggered by the agent.
Blind comparison requires subagents — skip it in Cursor.
Packaging works identically. Place the resulting skill folder in
```
.cursor/skills/
```
(or
```
.agents/skills/
```
for cross-platform).
When generating the eval viewer, use
```
--static <output_path>
```
if
```
webbrowser.open()
```
is not available in your Cursor environment.

Reference files

The agents/ directory contains instructions for specialized subagents. Read them when you need to spawn the relevant subagent.

```
agents/grader.md
```
— How to evaluate assertions against outputs
```
agents/comparator.md
```
— How to do blind A/B comparison between two outputs
```
agents/analyzer.md
```
— How to analyze why one version beat another

The references/ directory has additional documentation:

```
references/schemas.md
```
— JSON structures for evals.json, grading.json, etc.

Repeating one more time the core loop here for emphasis:

Figure out what the skill is about
Draft or edit the skill
Run the agent with access to the skill on test prompts
With the user, evaluate the outputs:
- Create benchmark.json and run
```
eval-viewer/generate_review.py
```
  to help the user review them
- Run quantitative evals
Repeat until you and the user are satisfied
Package the final skill and return it to the user.

Please add steps to your TodoList, if you have such a thing, to make sure you don't forget.

Good luck!

skill-creator

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Skill Creator

Communicating with the user

Creating a skill

Capture Intent

Target Platform

Interview and Research

Write the SKILL.md

Skill Writing Guide

Anatomy of a Skill

Progressive Disclosure

Principle of Lack of Surprise

Writing Patterns

Writing Style

Test Cases

Running and evaluating test cases

Step 1: Spawn all runs (with-skill AND baseline) in the same turn

Step 2: While runs are in progress, draft assertions

Step 3: As runs complete, capture timing data

Step 4: Grade — use agents/grader.md, not a custom script

What the user sees in the viewer

Step 5: Read the feedback

Improving the skill

How to think about improvements

The iteration loop

Advanced: Blind comparison

Description Optimization

Step 1: Generate trigger eval queries

Step 2: Review with user

Step 3: Run the optimization loop

How skill triggering works

Step 4: Apply the result

Package and Present (only if
`present_files`
tool is available)

Cursor-Specific Instructions

Reference files