Maintain Loom-compatible skills. Use when adding, tightening, reviewing, or auditing skill boundaries, activation descriptions, common triggers, templates, references, routing, or anti-rationalization guidance.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add aibot88/sec_skill_store --skill loom-skill-authoring --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Loom Skill Authoring?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/aibot88-loom-skill-authoring)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: loom-skill-authoring
description: "Maintain Loom-compatible skills. Use when adding, tightening, reviewing, or auditing skill boundaries, activation descriptions, common triggers, templates, references, routing, or anti-rationalization guidance."
compatibility: Markdown-native, script-free Loom protocol.
metadata:
skill_kind: authoring
---
# loom-skill-authoring
Use this skill to author Loom-compatible skills.
## Core Dependency
This playbook requires `loom-core`. If `using-loom` and the core owner-layer
skills are not installed or preloaded, stop and load/install `loom-core` instead
of treating this playbook as a substitute for Loom doctrine or record grammar.
## What This Skill Owns
- skill activation descriptions
- skill frontmatter and metadata conventions
- skill boundaries and overlap review
- skill review and pressure-scenario validation
- skill directory structure
- reference/template placement
- anti-pattern review for hidden runtimes or vague ownership
- skill-routing and pressure-scenario adaptation from peer skill systems
## What Good Loom Skills Do
A good Loom skill:
- has a broad activation description that names ordinary user/task triggers and
owner boundaries
- uses frontmatter metadata consistently with the skill boundary
- owns one subsystem or one coherent capability
- tells the agent what it governs and what it does not
- teaches a practical procedure
- names common rationalizations when agents are likely to skip the discipline
- names red flags that show the skill is being violated
- ends with evidence-backed verification, not a vibe check
- provides references for nuanced judgment
- provides templates when artifact creation is part of the workflow
## Pressure-Scenario Validation
When a skill change affects routing, verification, critique, acceptance, closure,
or operator discipline, test the behavior with at least one realistic pressure
scenario when proportional.
Use the smallest honest loop:
1. RED: name the prompt-shaped temptation the old or missing guidance would likely
mishandle, such as "skip formalities", "the fix is obvious", "the screenshot
looks fine", or "the child said done".
2. GREEN: edit the smallest skill surface that makes the correct Loom route,
owner record, or refusal obvious.
3. REFACTOR: remove duplicate prose, hidden runtime assumptions, over-broad
activation, or new owner ambiguity introduced by the fix.
Preserve the scenario in evidence or critique when the ticket needs durable
support. For small wording edits, a written scenario plus structural review may be
enough; do not invent a hidden skill-test harness.
## Use This Skill When
- you are adding a new skill
- you are collapsing duplicate skills
- you are tightening a vague skill description
- you are deciding whether a subsystem should exist as its own skill
## Do Not Use This Skill When
- the work really belongs to a canonical project record
- the "new skill" is just a one-off task
- you are trying to hide core rules inside a skill that should really be always-on doctrine
## Common Rationalizations
- **Rationalization:** "The skill reads well, so it is done."
**Reality:** Skill edits change future operator behavior; validation must check activation, boundaries, references, templates, and proportional evidence.
- **Rationalization:** "This rule can live in the new skill only."
**Reality:** Always-on doctrine belongs in using-Loom; owner truth belongs in owner records. Skills coordinate behavior without hiding core policy.
- **Rationalization:** "A broad description means the skill owns all related truth."
**Reality:** Broad activation improves discovery. Durable truth still routes to the owning Loom layer.
- **Rationalization:** "The pressure scenario is obvious, so I do not need to write it down."
**Reality:** Behavior-changing skill edits need a concrete check against the rationalization they are meant to prevent.
## Red Flags
- activation is too vague for an agent to know when to load the skill
- the skill duplicates another owner or creates a shadow owner layer
- required references are a bare index instead of immediate versus conditional reads
- templates introduce placeholder IDs, vague completion claims, or hidden runtime assumptions
- verification is only the author's confidence that the prose sounds right
- behavior-changing guidance lacks a pressure scenario, critique, or evidence posture proportional to risk
## Verification
- [ ] Frontmatter names `name`, `description`, `compatibility`, and appropriate `metadata`.
- [ ] The description names ordinary activation triggers without becoming the workflow shortcut.
- [ ] Ownership boundaries and non-owners are clear enough to prevent overlap.
- [ ] References are immediate or conditional for a stated reason.
- [ ] Templates exist only for artifact shapes the skill owns.
- [ ] Behavior-changing edits have structural checks, pressure scenarios, critique, or evidence proportional to risk.
- [ ] Pressure scenarios target real shortcut prompts and do not require hidden runtime machinery.
## Done Means
- the skill has a broad activation description with ordinary triggers, aliases,
and owner boundaries where relevant
- frontmatter names `name`, `description`, `compatibility`, and appropriate
`metadata` fields
- the skill states what it owns and what it does not own
- the skill teaches process over reference knowledge
- common rationalizations, red flags, and verification are present when they would
change agent behavior
- references and templates are placed only where they serve the skill boundary
- the skill does not duplicate another owner or create a hidden runtime
## Read In This Order
Read immediately for skill authoring:
1. `references/principles.md` when deciding whether a skill should exist and
what it should own.
2. `references/structure.md` when laying out files, references, and templates.
3. `references/skill-routing-and-pressure-testing.md` when adapting peer skills,
designing activation boundaries, or testing skills against rationalizations.
Then read conditionally:
4. `references/anti-patterns.md` when checking overlap, hidden runtime
dependency, or vague activation.
5. `references/skill-review.md` when a skill changes operator behavior,
discipline, routing, or protocol authority and needs pressure-testing or
critique before acceptance.
6. `templates/simple-skill.md` when creating an owner-layer, workflow, support,
shared-grammar, inner-loop, control-plane, entry-doctrine, or authoring skill with a
single coherent boundary.
7. `templates/router-skill.md` when creating a workflow coordinator that routes
among multiple owner layers without owning a new truth layer.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!