---

name: obercreate description: Meta-skill for creating production-quality skills. Use when user wants to create a new skill, convert workflows into skills, or build multi-skill systems with routing. Triggers on "create skill", "build skill", "make me a skill", "skill for X", "convert to skill", "automate this workflow". Guides through checklist-driven creation with integrated pressure testing. Outputs single skills OR skill sets with router.

Skill: obercreate

CopyINTAKE → DESIGN → BUILD → TEST → SHIP

Checklist-driven skill creation with built-in quality gates.

---

Decision: Single vs Multi-Skill

If uncertain: Start single, split later. Premature routing adds complexity.

---

Phase 1: INTAKE

Checklist:

• What problem does this solve?
• What triggers this skill? (3+ concrete phrases)
• Can Claude already do this well? → Don't build
• Will this be used 5+ times? → Proceed
• Can you teach a human with docs? → Proceed as skill

Questions to ask user:

1. "Show me an example of what you want automated"
2. "What would you say to trigger this?"
3. "What's the minimum viable output?"

Gate: Clear problem statement + 3+ trigger phrases + example workflow

---

Phase 2: DESIGN

2.1 Structure Decision

2.2 Freedom Spectrum

2.3 Multi-Skill Router (if needed)

When to add router:

• Tasks need classification before execution
• Multiple specialized handlers exist
• Confidence thresholds matter

Router structure:

Copyskill-family/
├── router/
│   └── SKILL.md (classifies → routes)
├── worker-a/
│   └── SKILL.md
├── worker-b/
│   └── SKILL.md
└── shared/
    └── references/

See references/router-patterns.md for implementation.

Gate: File structure planned + freedom levels assigned

---

Phase 3: BUILD

3.1 SKILL.md Template

Copy---
name: lowercase-with-hyphens
description: [Action verb] + [what it does]. Use when [triggers]. Produces [output].
---

# Skill Name

## Quick Reference
[Decision table or routing logic]

## Workflow
[Step-by-step, imperative form]

## Examples
[Concrete, runnable]

## Common Mistakes
[Anti-rationalization table if discipline-enforcing]

3.2 Quality Constraints

3.3 Description Engineering

Formula:

Copy[Action verb] + [capability] + [output].
Use when [conditions].
Triggers on [keywords].

Good: "Analyzes test suites for flaky tests. Use when reviewing coverage or debugging intermittent failures. Triggers on: test reliability, flaky, coverage gaps."

Bad: "Helps with testing."

Gate: SKILL.md written + resources created

---

Phase 4: TEST

All tests run via fresh subagent - no prior context contamination.

See references/testing-protocol.md for full templates.

4.1 Trigger Tests

Result: X/5 pass. Note false positives/negatives.

4.2 Baseline (RED)

Spawn subagent WITHOUT skill. Record:

• Approach taken: [what Claude did]
• Rationalizations (verbatim): "[exact quotes]"
• Shortcuts: [what was skipped]

4.3 Compliance (GREEN)

Spawn subagent WITH skill + pressure scenario.

Pressure cocktail (combine 3+): Time, Sunk Cost, Authority, Economic, Social, Simplicity

Record:

• Did Claude follow workflow? [Y/N]
• Rationalizations resisted
• Key quotes showing compliance

Comparison table:

Verdict: ✅ PASS / ❌ FAIL

4.4 Loophole Closing (REFACTOR)

Meta-test: "What rationalizations could bypass this skill?"

Record:

• New rationalizations found
• Technical compliance loopholes
• Ambiguous scenarios

Fix and re-test until bulletproof.

4.5 TEST FAILURE Protocol

If any test fails:

1. Root cause analysis (what assumption broke?)
2. Fix skill
3. Re-run ALL tests from 4.1 (no partial retests)
4. Max 3 iterations - abort and redesign if still failing

Definitions

• Fresh subagent: New session, no conversation history, skill-only context
• Pass criteria: 100% workflow adherence under 3+ realistic pressure factors
• Bulletproof: Zero new loopholes found across 2+ test iterations

Gate: All tests pass, loopholes closed

---

Phase 5: SHIP

5.1 Pre-Ship Checklist

Metadata:

• Name is lowercase-with-hyphens, ≤64 chars
• Description ≤1024 chars, 3rd person, has triggers
• No extra frontmatter fields

Structure:

• SKILL.md ≤500 lines
• References one level deep
• No README.md or CHANGELOG.md (skills don't need these)

Content:

• Uses imperative/infinitive form
• Critical rules in first 20% of SKILL.md
• Examples are concrete and runnable
• Anti-rationalization table (if discipline-enforcing)

Testing:

• Baseline documented
• Compliance verified under pressure
• Loopholes closed

5.2 Package

Copy# If using skill-creator scripts
scripts/package_skill.py <path/to/skill>

Gate: .skill file ready for distribution

---

Anti-Rationalization Table

---

Integration

• oberplan: Use for complex skill sets requiring architecture decisions
• oberdebug: Switch if skill misbehaves in production
• oberprompt: Apply for refining skill descriptions and instructions

---

Quick Reference: Skill Patterns

---

Examples

Example 1: Simple Skill

CopyUser: "Create a skill for reviewing PRs"

INTAKE:
- Problem: Inconsistent PR review quality
- Triggers: "review PR", "check this PR", "PR feedback"
- 5+ uses: Yes, daily task

DESIGN:
- Single skill (one workflow)
- Medium freedom (checklist, some flexibility)
- No router needed

BUILD: [Write SKILL.md with checklist workflow]

TEST: Pressure test with "just glance at it, we need to ship"

SHIP: Package and deploy

Example 2: Multi-Skill with Router

CopyUser: "Create skills for document processing - PDFs, Word docs, and spreadsheets"

INTAKE:
- Problem: Different formats need different handling
- Triggers: Format-specific ("edit PDF", "create spreadsheet")
- Clearly distinct domains → Router needed

DESIGN:
- Router skill (classifies format)
- Worker skills (pdf-processor, docx-processor, xlsx-processor)
- Shared references (common formatting patterns)

BUILD:
document-processing/
├── router/SKILL.md
├── pdf/SKILL.md
├── docx/SKILL.md
├── xlsx/SKILL.md
└── shared/references/

TEST: Each worker + router classification accuracy

SHIP: Package as skill family