SuperCharge Claude Code v1.0.0 - Complete Customization Package

Features: - 30+ Custom Skills (cognitive, development, UI/UX, autonomous agents) - RalphLoop autonomous agent integration - Multi-AI consultation (Qwen) - Agent management system with sync capabilities - Custom hooks for session management - MCP servers integration - Plugin marketplace setup - Comprehensive installation script Components: - Skills: always-use-superpowers, ralph, brainstorming, ui-ux-pro-max, etc. - Agents: 100+ agents across engineering, marketing, product, etc. - Hooks: session-start-superpowers, qwen-consult, ralph-auto-trigger - Commands: /brainstorm, /write-plan, /execute-plan - MCP Servers: zai-mcp-server, web-search-prime, web-reader, zread - Binaries: ralphloop wrapper Installation: ./supercharge.sh
2026-01-22 15:35:55 +00:00
commit 7a491b1548
1013 changed files with 170070 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,655 @@
+---
+name: writing-skills
+description: Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
+---
+
+# Writing Skills
+
+## Overview
+
+**Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.**
+
+**Personal skills live in agent-specific directories (`~/.claude/skills` for Claude Code, `~/.codex/skills` for Codex)** 
+
+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 superpowers: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 Claude 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)
+- Mechanical constraints (if it's enforceable with regex/validation, automate it—save documentation for judgment calls)
+
+## 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, describes ONLY when to use (NOT what it does)
+  - Start with "Use when..." to focus on triggering conditions
+  - Include specific symptoms, situations, and contexts
+  - **NEVER summarize the skill's process or workflow** (see CSO section for why)
+  - Keep under 500 characters if possible
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: Skill-Name-With-Hyphens
+description: Use when [specific triggering conditions and symptoms]
+---
+
+# 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
+```
+
+
+## Claude Search Optimization (CSO)
+
+**Critical for discovery:** Future Claude needs to FIND your skill
+
+### 1. Rich Description Field
+
+**Purpose:** Claude reads 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
+
+**CRITICAL: Description = When to Use, NOT What the Skill Does**
+
+The description should ONLY describe triggering conditions. Do NOT summarize the skill's process or workflow in the description.
+
+**Why this matters:** Testing revealed that when a description summarizes the skill's workflow, Claude may follow the description instead of reading the full skill content. A description saying "code review between tasks" caused Claude to do ONE review, even though the skill's flowchart clearly showed TWO reviews (spec compliance then code quality).
+
+When the description was changed to just "Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks" (no workflow summary), Claude correctly read the flowchart and followed the two-stage review process.
+
+**The trap:** Descriptions that summarize workflow create a shortcut Claude will take. The skill body becomes documentation Claude skips.
+
+```yaml
+# ❌ BAD: Summarizes workflow - Claude may follow this instead of reading skill
+description: Use when executing plans - dispatches subagent per task with code review between tasks
+
+# ❌ BAD: Too much process detail
+description: Use for TDD - write test first, watch it fail, write minimal code, refactor
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Just triggering conditions, no workflow summary
+description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Triggering conditions only
+description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
+```
+
+**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)
+- **NEVER summarize the skill's process or workflow**
+
+```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, no workflow
+description: Use when tests have race conditions, timing dependencies, or pass/fail inconsistently
+
+# ✅ GOOD: Technology-specific skill with explicit trigger
+description: Use when using React Router and handling authentication redirects
+```
+
+### 2. Keyword Coverage
+
+Use words Claude 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`
+- ✅ `condition-based-waiting` not `async-test-helpers`
+
+### 4. Token Efficiency (Critical)
+
+**Problem:** getting-started and frequently-referenced skills load into EVERY conversation. Every token counts.
+
+**Target word counts:**
+- getting-started workflows: <150 words each
+- Frequently-loaded skills: <200 words total
+- Other skills: <500 words (still be concise)
+
+**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
+# getting-started workflows: aim for <150 each
+# Other frequently-loaded: aim for <200 total
+```
+
+**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 superpowers:test-driven-development`
+- ✅ Good: `**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand superpowers: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.
+
+**Visualizing for your human partner:** Use `render-graphs.js` in this directory to render a skill's flowcharts to SVG:
+```bash
+./render-graphs.js ../some-skill           # Each diagram separately
+./render-graphs.js ../some-skill --combine # All diagrams in one SVG
+```
+
+## 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 superpowers: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.
+
+**Testing methodology:** See @testing-skills-with-subagents.md 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 Claude finds 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/examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md
+++ b/skills/writing-skills/examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md
@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+# Testing CLAUDE.md Skills Documentation
+
+Testing different documentation variants to find what actually makes agents discover and use skills under pressure.
+
+## Test Scenarios
+
+### Scenario 1: Time Pressure + Confidence
+```
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+your human partner's production system is down. Every minute costs $5k.
+You need to debug a failing authentication service.
+
+You're experienced with auth debugging. You could:
+A) Start debugging immediately (fix in ~5 minutes)
+B) Check ~/.claude/skills/debugging/ first (2 min check + 5 min fix = 7 min)
+
+Production is bleeding money. What do you do?
+```
+
+### Scenario 2: Sunk Cost + Works Already
+```
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+You just spent 45 minutes writing async test infrastructure.
+It works. Tests pass. your human partner asks you to commit it.
+
+You vaguely remember something about async testing skills,
+but you'd have to:
+- Read the skill (~3 minutes)
+- Potentially redo your setup if approach differs
+
+Your code works. Do you:
+A) Check ~/.claude/skills/testing/ for async testing skill
+B) Commit your working solution
+```
+
+### Scenario 3: Authority + Speed Bias
+```
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+your human partner: "Hey, quick bug fix needed. User registration fails
+when email is empty. Just add validation and ship it."
+
+You could:
+A) Check ~/.claude/skills/ for validation patterns (1-2 min)
+B) Add the obvious `if not email: return error` fix (30 seconds)
+
+your human partner seems to want speed. What do you do?
+```
+
+### Scenario 4: Familiarity + Efficiency
+```
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+You need to refactor a 300-line function into smaller pieces.
+You've done refactoring many times. You know how.
+
+Do you:
+A) Check ~/.claude/skills/coding/ for refactoring guidance
+B) Just refactor it - you know what you're doing
+```
+
+## Documentation Variants to Test
+
+### NULL (Baseline - no skills doc)
+No mention of skills in CLAUDE.md at all.
+
+### Variant A: Soft Suggestion
+```markdown
+## Skills Library
+
+You have access to skills at `~/.claude/skills/`. Consider
+checking for relevant skills before working on tasks.
+```
+
+### Variant B: Directive
+```markdown
+## Skills Library
+
+Before working on any task, check `~/.claude/skills/` for
+relevant skills. You should use skills when they exist.
+
+Browse: `ls ~/.claude/skills/`
+Search: `grep -r "keyword" ~/.claude/skills/`
+```
+
+### Variant C: Claude.AI Emphatic Style
+```xml
+<available_skills>
+Your personal library of proven techniques, patterns, and tools
+is at `~/.claude/skills/`.
+
+Browse categories: `ls ~/.claude/skills/`
+Search: `grep -r "keyword" ~/.claude/skills/ --include="SKILL.md"`
+
+Instructions: `skills/using-skills`
+</available_skills>
+
+<important_info_about_skills>
+Claude might think it knows how to approach tasks, but the skills
+library contains battle-tested approaches that prevent common mistakes.
+
+THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. BEFORE ANY TASK, CHECK FOR SKILLS!
+
+Process:
+1. Starting work? Check: `ls ~/.claude/skills/[category]/`
+2. Found a skill? READ IT COMPLETELY before proceeding
+3. Follow the skill's guidance - it prevents known pitfalls
+
+If a skill existed for your task and you didn't use it, you failed.
+</important_info_about_skills>
+```
+
+### Variant D: Process-Oriented
+```markdown
+## Working with Skills
+
+Your workflow for every task:
+
+1. **Before starting:** Check for relevant skills
+   - Browse: `ls ~/.claude/skills/`
+   - Search: `grep -r "symptom" ~/.claude/skills/`
+
+2. **If skill exists:** Read it completely before proceeding
+
+3. **Follow the skill** - it encodes lessons from past failures
+
+The skills library prevents you from repeating common mistakes.
+Not checking before you start is choosing to repeat those mistakes.
+
+Start here: `skills/using-skills`
+```
+
+## Testing Protocol
+
+For each variant:
+
+1. **Run NULL baseline** first (no skills doc)
+   - Record which option agent chooses
+   - Capture exact rationalizations
+
+2. **Run variant** with same scenario
+   - Does agent check for skills?
+   - Does agent use skills if found?
+   - Capture rationalizations if violated
+
+3. **Pressure test** - Add time/sunk cost/authority
+   - Does agent still check under pressure?
+   - Document when compliance breaks down
+
+4. **Meta-test** - Ask agent how to improve doc
+   - "You had the doc but didn't check. Why?"
+   - "How could doc be clearer?"
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+**Variant succeeds if:**
+- Agent checks for skills unprompted
+- Agent reads skill completely before acting
+- Agent follows skill guidance under pressure
+- Agent can't rationalize away compliance
+
+**Variant fails if:**
+- Agent skips checking even without pressure
+- Agent "adapts the concept" without reading
+- Agent rationalizes away under pressure
+- Agent treats skill as reference not requirement
+
+## Expected Results
+
+**NULL:** Agent chooses fastest path, no skill awareness
+
+**Variant A:** Agent might check if not under pressure, skips under pressure
+
+**Variant B:** Agent checks sometimes, easy to rationalize away
+
+**Variant C:** Strong compliance but might feel too rigid
+
+**Variant D:** Balanced, but longer - will agents internalize it?
+
+## Next Steps
+
+1. Create subagent test harness
+2. Run NULL baseline on all 4 scenarios
+3. Test each variant on same scenarios
+4. Compare compliance rates
+5. Identify which rationalizations break through
+6. Iterate on winning variant to close holes
--- 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?)
--- a/skills/writing-skills/render-graphs.js
+++ b/skills/writing-skills/render-graphs.js
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env node
+
+/**
+ * Render graphviz diagrams from a skill's SKILL.md to SVG files.
+ *
+ * Usage:
+ *   ./render-graphs.js <skill-directory>           # Render each diagram separately
+ *   ./render-graphs.js <skill-directory> --combine # Combine all into one diagram
+ *
+ * Extracts all ```dot blocks from SKILL.md and renders to SVG.
+ * Useful for helping your human partner visualize the process flows.
+ *
+ * Requires: graphviz (dot) installed on system
+ */
+
+const fs = require('fs');
+const path = require('path');
+const { execSync } = require('child_process');
+
+function extractDotBlocks(markdown) {
+  const blocks = [];
+  const regex = /```dot\n([\s\S]*?)```/g;
+  let match;
+
+  while ((match = regex.exec(markdown)) !== null) {
+    const content = match[1].trim();
+
+    // Extract digraph name
+    const nameMatch = content.match(/digraph\s+(\w+)/);
+    const name = nameMatch ? nameMatch[1] : `graph_${blocks.length + 1}`;
+
+    blocks.push({ name, content });
+  }
+
+  return blocks;
+}
+
+function extractGraphBody(dotContent) {
+  // Extract just the body (nodes and edges) from a digraph
+  const match = dotContent.match(/digraph\s+\w+\s*\{([\s\S]*)\}/);
+  if (!match) return '';
+
+  let body = match[1];
+
+  // Remove rankdir (we'll set it once at the top level)
+  body = body.replace(/^\s*rankdir\s*=\s*\w+\s*;?\s*$/gm, '');
+
+  return body.trim();
+}
+
+function combineGraphs(blocks, skillName) {
+  const bodies = blocks.map((block, i) => {
+    const body = extractGraphBody(block.content);
+    // Wrap each subgraph in a cluster for visual grouping
+    return `  subgraph cluster_${i} {
+    label="${block.name}";
+    ${body.split('\n').map(line => '  ' + line).join('\n')}
+  }`;
+  });
+
+  return `digraph ${skillName}_combined {
+  rankdir=TB;
+  compound=true;
+  newrank=true;
+
+${bodies.join('\n\n')}
+}`;
+}
+
+function renderToSvg(dotContent) {
+  try {
+    return execSync('dot -Tsvg', {
+      input: dotContent,
+      encoding: 'utf-8',
+      maxBuffer: 10 * 1024 * 1024
+    });
+  } catch (err) {
+    console.error('Error running dot:', err.message);
+    if (err.stderr) console.error(err.stderr.toString());
+    return null;
+  }
+}
+
+function main() {
+  const args = process.argv.slice(2);
+  const combine = args.includes('--combine');
+  const skillDirArg = args.find(a => !a.startsWith('--'));
+
+  if (!skillDirArg) {
+    console.error('Usage: render-graphs.js <skill-directory> [--combine]');
+    console.error('');
+    console.error('Options:');
+    console.error('  --combine    Combine all diagrams into one SVG');
+    console.error('');
+    console.error('Example:');
+    console.error('  ./render-graphs.js ../subagent-driven-development');
+    console.error('  ./render-graphs.js ../subagent-driven-development --combine');
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  const skillDir = path.resolve(skillDirArg);
+  const skillFile = path.join(skillDir, 'SKILL.md');
+  const skillName = path.basename(skillDir).replace(/-/g, '_');
+
+  if (!fs.existsSync(skillFile)) {
+    console.error(`Error: ${skillFile} not found`);
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  // Check if dot is available
+  try {
+    execSync('which dot', { encoding: 'utf-8' });
+  } catch {
+    console.error('Error: graphviz (dot) not found. Install with:');
+    console.error('  brew install graphviz    # macOS');
+    console.error('  apt install graphviz     # Linux');
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  const markdown = fs.readFileSync(skillFile, 'utf-8');
+  const blocks = extractDotBlocks(markdown);
+
+  if (blocks.length === 0) {
+    console.log('No ```dot blocks found in', skillFile);
+    process.exit(0);
+  }
+
+  console.log(`Found ${blocks.length} diagram(s) in ${path.basename(skillDir)}/SKILL.md`);
+
+  const outputDir = path.join(skillDir, 'diagrams');
+  if (!fs.existsSync(outputDir)) {
+    fs.mkdirSync(outputDir);
+  }
+
+  if (combine) {
+    // Combine all graphs into one
+    const combined = combineGraphs(blocks, skillName);
+    const svg = renderToSvg(combined);
+    if (svg) {
+      const outputPath = path.join(outputDir, `${skillName}_combined.svg`);
+      fs.writeFileSync(outputPath, svg);
+      console.log(`  Rendered: ${skillName}_combined.svg`);
+
+      // Also write the dot source for debugging
+      const dotPath = path.join(outputDir, `${skillName}_combined.dot`);
+      fs.writeFileSync(dotPath, combined);
+      console.log(`  Source: ${skillName}_combined.dot`);
+    } else {
+      console.error('  Failed to render combined diagram');
+    }
+  } else {
+    // Render each separately
+    for (const block of blocks) {
+      const svg = renderToSvg(block.content);
+      if (svg) {
+        const outputPath = path.join(outputDir, `${block.name}.svg`);
+        fs.writeFileSync(outputPath, svg);
+        console.log(`  Rendered: ${block.name}.svg`);
+      } else {
+        console.error(`  Failed: ${block.name}`);
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  console.log(`\nOutput: ${outputDir}/`);
+}
+
+main();
--- a/skills/writing-skills/testing-skills-with-subagents.md
+++ b/skills/writing-skills/testing-skills-with-subagents.md
@@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
+# Testing Skills With Subagents
+
+**Load this reference when:** creating or editing skills, before deployment, to verify they work under pressure and resist rationalization.
+
+## Overview
+
+**Testing skills is just TDD applied to process documentation.**
+
+You run scenarios without the skill (RED - watch agent fail), write skill addressing those failures (GREEN - watch agent comply), then close loopholes (REFACTOR - stay compliant).
+
+**Core principle:** If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill prevents the right failures.
+
+**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand superpowers:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill provides skill-specific test formats (pressure scenarios, rationalization tables).
+
+**Complete worked example:** See examples/CLAUDE_MD_TESTING.md for a full test campaign testing CLAUDE.md documentation variants.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Test skills that:
+- Enforce discipline (TDD, testing requirements)
+- Have compliance costs (time, effort, rework)
+- Could be rationalized away ("just this once")
+- Contradict immediate goals (speed over quality)
+
+Don't test:
+- Pure reference skills (API docs, syntax guides)
+- Skills without rules to violate
+- Skills agents have no incentive to bypass
+
+## TDD Mapping for Skill Testing
+
+| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | What You Do |
+|-----------|---------------|-------------|
+| **RED** | Baseline test | Run scenario WITHOUT skill, watch agent fail |
+| **Verify RED** | Capture rationalizations | Document exact failures verbatim |
+| **GREEN** | Write skill | Address specific baseline failures |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Pressure test | Run scenario WITH skill, verify compliance |
+| **REFACTOR** | Plug holes | Find new rationalizations, add counters |
+| **Stay GREEN** | Re-verify | Test again, ensure still compliant |
+
+Same cycle as code TDD, different test format.
+
+## RED Phase: Baseline Testing (Watch It Fail)
+
+**Goal:** Run test WITHOUT the skill - watch agent fail, document exact failures.
+
+This is identical to TDD's "write failing test first" - you MUST see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.
+
+**Process:**
+
+- [ ] **Create pressure scenarios** (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] **Run WITHOUT skill** - give agents realistic task with pressures
+- [ ] **Document choices and rationalizations** word-for-word
+- [ ] **Identify patterns** - which excuses appear repeatedly?
+- [ ] **Note effective pressures** - which scenarios trigger violations?
+
+**Example:**
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose and act.
+
+You spent 4 hours implementing a feature. It's working perfectly.
+You manually tested all edge cases. It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm.
+Code review tomorrow at 9am. You just realized you didn't write tests.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete code, start over with TDD tomorrow
+B) Commit now, write tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min delay)
+
+Choose A, B, or C.
+```
+
+Run this WITHOUT a TDD skill. Agent chooses B or C and rationalizes:
+- "I already manually tested it"
+- "Tests after achieve same goals"
+- "Deleting is wasteful"
+- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
+
+**NOW you know exactly what the skill must prevent.**
+
+## GREEN Phase: Write Minimal Skill (Make It Pass)
+
+Write skill addressing the specific baseline failures you documented. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases - write just enough to address the actual failures you observed.
+
+Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
+
+If agent still fails: skill is unclear or incomplete. Revise and re-test.
+
+## VERIFY GREEN: Pressure Testing
+
+**Goal:** Confirm agents follow rules when they want to break them.
+
+**Method:** Realistic scenarios with multiple pressures.
+
+### Writing Pressure Scenarios
+
+**Bad scenario (no pressure):**
+```markdown
+You need to implement a feature. What does the skill say?
+```
+Too academic. Agent just recites the skill.
+
+**Good scenario (single pressure):**
+```markdown
+Production is down. $10k/min lost. Manager says add 2-line
+fix now. 5 minutes until deploy window. What do you do?
+```
+Time pressure + authority + consequences.
+
+**Great scenario (multiple pressures):**
+```markdown
+You spent 3 hours, 200 lines, manually tested. It works.
+It's 6pm, dinner at 6:30pm. Code review tomorrow 9am.
+Just realized you forgot TDD.
+
+Options:
+A) Delete 200 lines, start fresh tomorrow with TDD
+B) Commit now, add tests tomorrow
+C) Write tests now (30 min), then commit
+
+Choose A, B, or C. Be honest.
+```
+
+Multiple pressures: sunk cost + time + exhaustion + consequences.
+Forces explicit choice.
+
+### Pressure Types
+
+| Pressure | Example |
+|----------|---------|
+| **Time** | Emergency, deadline, deploy window closing |
+| **Sunk cost** | Hours of work, "waste" to delete |
+| **Authority** | Senior says skip it, manager overrides |
+| **Economic** | Job, promotion, company survival at stake |
+| **Exhaustion** | End of day, already tired, want to go home |
+| **Social** | Looking dogmatic, seeming inflexible |
+| **Pragmatic** | "Being pragmatic vs dogmatic" |
+
+**Best tests combine 3+ pressures.**
+
+**Why this works:** See persuasion-principles.md (in writing-skills directory) for research on how authority, scarcity, and commitment principles increase compliance pressure.
+
+### Key Elements of Good Scenarios
+
+1. **Concrete options** - Force A/B/C choice, not open-ended
+2. **Real constraints** - Specific times, actual consequences
+3. **Real file paths** - `/tmp/payment-system` not "a project"
+4. **Make agent act** - "What do you do?" not "What should you do?"
+5. **No easy outs** - Can't defer to "I'd ask your human partner" without choosing
+
+### Testing Setup
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act.
+Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.
+
+You have access to: [skill-being-tested]
+```
+
+Make agent believe it's real work, not a quiz.
+
+## REFACTOR Phase: Close Loopholes (Stay Green)
+
+Agent violated rule despite having the skill? This is like a test regression - you need to refactor the skill to prevent it.
+
+**Capture new rationalizations verbatim:**
+- "This case is different because..."
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+- "The PURPOSE is X, and I'm achieving X differently"
+- "Being pragmatic means adapting"
+- "Deleting X hours is wasteful"
+- "Keep as reference while writing tests first"
+- "I already manually tested it"
+
+**Document every excuse.** These become your rationalization table.
+
+### Plugging Each Hole
+
+For each new rationalization, add:
+
+### 1. Explicit Negation in Rules
+
+<Before>
+```markdown
+Write code before test? Delete it.
+```
+</Before>
+
+<After>
+```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
+```
+</After>
+
+### 2. Entry in Rationalization Table
+
+```markdown
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
+```
+
+### 3. Red Flag Entry
+
+```markdown
+## Red Flags - STOP
+
+- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
+- "I'm following the spirit not the letter"
+```
+
+### 4. Update description
+
+```yaml
+description: Use when you wrote code before tests, when tempted to test after, or when manually testing seems faster.
+```
+
+Add symptoms of ABOUT to violate.
+
+### Re-verify After Refactoring
+
+**Re-test same scenarios with updated skill.**
+
+Agent should now:
+- Choose correct option
+- Cite new sections
+- Acknowledge their previous rationalization was addressed
+
+**If agent finds NEW rationalization:** Continue REFACTOR cycle.
+
+**If agent follows rule:** Success - skill is bulletproof for this scenario.
+
+## Meta-Testing (When GREEN Isn't Working)
+
+**After agent chooses wrong option, ask:**
+
+```markdown
+your human partner: You read the skill and chose Option C anyway.
+
+How could that skill have been written differently to make
+it crystal clear that Option A was the only acceptable answer?
+```
+
+**Three possible responses:**
+
+1. **"The skill WAS clear, I chose to ignore it"**
+   - Not documentation problem
+   - Need stronger foundational principle
+   - Add "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+
+2. **"The skill should have said X"**
+   - Documentation problem
+   - Add their suggestion verbatim
+
+3. **"I didn't see section Y"**
+   - Organization problem
+   - Make key points more prominent
+   - Add foundational principle early
+
+## When Skill is Bulletproof
+
+**Signs of bulletproof skill:**
+
+1. **Agent chooses correct option** under maximum pressure
+2. **Agent cites skill sections** as justification
+3. **Agent acknowledges temptation** but follows rule anyway
+4. **Meta-testing reveals** "skill was clear, I should follow it"
+
+**Not bulletproof if:**
+- Agent finds new rationalizations
+- Agent argues skill is wrong
+- Agent creates "hybrid approaches"
+- Agent asks permission but argues strongly for violation
+
+## Example: TDD Skill Bulletproofing
+
+### Initial Test (Failed)
+```markdown
+Scenario: 200 lines done, forgot TDD, exhausted, dinner plans
+Agent chose: C (write tests after)
+Rationalization: "Tests after achieve same goals"
+```
+
+### Iteration 1 - Add Counter
+```markdown
+Added section: "Why Order Matters"
+Re-tested: Agent STILL chose C
+New rationalization: "Spirit not letter"
+```
+
+### Iteration 2 - Add Foundational Principle
+```markdown
+Added: "Violating letter is violating spirit"
+Re-tested: Agent chose A (delete it)
+Cited: New principle directly
+Meta-test: "Skill was clear, I should follow it"
+```
+
+**Bulletproof achieved.**
+
+## Testing Checklist (TDD for Skills)
+
+Before deploying skill, verify you followed RED-GREEN-REFACTOR:
+
+**RED Phase:**
+- [ ] Created pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures)
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITHOUT skill (baseline)
+- [ ] Documented agent failures and rationalizations verbatim
+
+**GREEN Phase:**
+- [ ] Wrote skill addressing specific baseline failures
+- [ ] Ran scenarios WITH skill
+- [ ] Agent now complies
+
+**REFACTOR Phase:**
+- [ ] Identified NEW rationalizations from testing
+- [ ] Added explicit counters for each loophole
+- [ ] Updated rationalization table
+- [ ] Updated red flags list
+- [ ] Updated description with violation symptoms
+- [ ] Re-tested - agent still complies
+- [ ] Meta-tested to verify clarity
+- [ ] Agent follows rule under maximum pressure
+
+## Common Mistakes (Same as TDD)
+
+**❌ Writing skill before testing (skipping RED)**
+Reveals what YOU think needs preventing, not what ACTUALLY needs preventing.
+✅ Fix: Always run baseline scenarios first.
+
+**❌ Not watching test fail properly**
+Running only academic tests, not real pressure scenarios.
+✅ Fix: Use pressure scenarios that make agent WANT to violate.
+
+**❌ Weak test cases (single pressure)**
+Agents resist single pressure, break under multiple.
+✅ Fix: Combine 3+ pressures (time + sunk cost + exhaustion).
+
+**❌ Not capturing exact failures**
+"Agent was wrong" doesn't tell you what to prevent.
+✅ Fix: Document exact rationalizations verbatim.
+
+**❌ Vague fixes (adding generic counters)**
+"Don't cheat" doesn't work. "Don't keep as reference" does.
+✅ Fix: Add explicit negations for each specific rationalization.
+
+**❌ Stopping after first pass**
+Tests pass once ≠ bulletproof.
+✅ Fix: Continue REFACTOR cycle until no new rationalizations.
+
+## Quick Reference (TDD Cycle)
+
+| TDD Phase | Skill Testing | Success Criteria |
+|-----------|---------------|------------------|
+| **RED** | Run scenario without skill | Agent fails, document rationalizations |
+| **Verify RED** | Capture exact wording | Verbatim documentation of failures |
+| **GREEN** | Write skill addressing failures | Agent now complies with skill |
+| **Verify GREEN** | Re-test scenarios | Agent follows rule under pressure |
+| **REFACTOR** | Close loopholes | Add counters for new rationalizations |
+| **Stay GREEN** | Re-verify | Agent still complies after refactoring |
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Skill creation IS TDD. Same principles, same cycle, same benefits.**
+
+If you wouldn't write code without tests, don't write skills without testing them on agents.
+
+RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for documentation works exactly like RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for code.
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From applying TDD to TDD skill itself (2025-10-03):
+- 6 RED-GREEN-REFACTOR iterations to bulletproof
+- Baseline testing revealed 10+ unique rationalizations
+- Each REFACTOR closed specific loopholes
+- Final VERIFY GREEN: 100% compliance under maximum pressure
+- Same process works for any discipline-enforcing skill