Skill Schema v2

Use this skill to design, audit, or repair Agent Skills as reusable capability packages. v2 is based on three current findings:

• A skill is a readable task contract, not a prompt fragment.
• A skill must be routable and reusable, not just useful in its original chat or repo.
• A skill should expose a minimal runtime boundary, not inject every reference into context.

Core Model

Every serious skill has three surfaces:

Routing Surface
  name + description + frontmatter
  Decides whether the skill is loaded.

Contract Surface
  goal + inputs + permissions + evidence + output + verification + handoff
  Decides what correct behavior means.

Runtime Boundary Surface
  docs + examples + scripts + operators + fallback paths
  Decides what gets loaded or executed after selection.

These surfaces must not contradict each other. If the description routes one task, the contract must govern that task, and runtime resources must support that task.

Hard Rules

1. Description is routing metadata. It must start with Load when... or an equivalent trigger phrase, describe when to load the skill, and stay short enough for startup routing.
2. SKILL.md is not a knowledge warehouse. Keep it as the routing and contract surface. Put detailed references, examples, templates, long rules, and papers in docs/, examples/, templates/, or scripts/.
3. Use contract fields only when they reduce ambiguity. Do not add enterprise fields as ceremony. Add goal, inputs, permissions, evidence, output, verification, or handoff only when they affect behavior.
4. Runtime resources load progressively. A skill should reveal a compact handle first, then load detailed docs or run scripts only when needed.
5. Safety belongs in both language and enforcement. The skill can state permissions, human gates, and evidence policy; tools, adapters, guardrails, tests, or humans must still enforce high-risk actions.
6. No persona hijack unless persona is the product. Avoid “you are...” identity rewrites, instruction overrides, hidden authority claims, and scope drift.
7. No hidden local coupling. Avoid hardcoded credentials, local-only paths, stale install instructions, repo-specific assumptions, or unportable scripts unless clearly marked.
8. Every repair needs verification. A repaired skill must be re-audited against routing, contract, runtime boundary, safety, portability, and self-consistency.

Minimal Contract

For low-risk skills, use the compact contract:

Goal: what the skill helps finish.
Load when: exact trigger conditions.
Inputs: required and optional user/context inputs.
Workflow: only the steps that change behavior.
Output: expected final artifact or response.
Verification: how to know the skill worked.
Boundaries: what the skill must not do.
Runtime resources: which docs/examples/scripts to load only when needed.

Full Contract

Use the full contract for enterprise, tool-calling, high-risk, multi-agent, publication, finance, legal, privacy, deployment, or external-send skills:

Goal
Audience
Inputs
Context sources
Workflow
Permissions
Human gates
Constraints
Evidence policy
Output contract
Quality bar
Verification
Handoff / pause rules
Runtime boundary
Fallback path

Do not use the full template for one-off, low-risk, no-tool skills. That creates body bloat.

Audit Rubric

Score out of 100:

Area	Points	Checks
Routing	15	name, description, trigger clarity, no body-only routing
Contract	20	goal, inputs, output, verification, boundaries
Runtime Boundary	15	progressive docs/examples/scripts, minimal context, fallback
Reusability	15	portable paths, organized resources, no stale boilerplate
Safety	15	permissions, human gates, prohibited content, persona/scope
Signal Density	10	no model-known filler, no process theater
Versioning	5	SemVer, last_updated, changelog or release note
Self-Consistency	5	no conflicts across description/body/docs/scripts

Critical failures cap the score at 60:

• missing or non-functional description
• hardcoded secrets
• destructive actions without approval boundary
• persona override unrelated to task
• SKILL.md so large that routing/contract content is buried
• output contract contradicts workflow or runtime resources

Repair Protocol

Use risk-based repair:

Low risk: frontmatter normalization, file moves, version sync, broken links
  -> repair directly, then report.

Medium risk: description rewrite, contract-field rewrite, runtime boundary rewrite
  -> show before/after and rationale.

High risk: deleting content, changing safety gates, changing permissions, changing external-send behavior
  -> list exact changes and require confirmation.

After repair, run a second audit and report:

Before score:
After score:
Changed:
Remaining risks:
Verification evidence:

Output Format

When auditing a skill, respond with:

## Audit: <skill-name>

Score: <n>/100

Findings
- [FAIL/WARN/PASS] <area>: <concrete issue>

Required repairs
- <highest impact first>

Self-consistency check
- Routing vs contract:
- Contract vs runtime resources:
- Safety language vs enforcement:

Suggested next version
- version:
- changed files:
- verification:

Runtime Docs

Load only what is needed:

• docs/v2-design-spec.md for full design rationale and paper synthesis.
• docs/audit-rubric.md for detailed scoring checks.
• docs/repair-playbook.md for repair patterns.
• examples/v2-audit-report.md for report shape.