For general tasks, the model seems perfectly capable of figuring out things itself, for project or environment specific tasks, I just put that information in the readme or agents.md file.
Skills are more for things you do often. I run mutation tests, type check,linting,etc. I _could_ just prompt and copy/paste the same prompt each time I need to, or I can just run /tests.
I also have skills for specialized tasks I need every once in a while, like a ux skill, a text skill optimized for xyz, etc.
This documentation is its own git repo, and the agents.md file has an explicit instruction to update the docs when it has learned something general that can be useful in future sessions. I then occasionally review and prune those docs.
The description in the front-matter (at the top of the skill markdown file) is the only thing in the context and used by the agent to determine when to read in the rest of the skill file.
Skills itself may be lengthy so...
I'm not sure if this differs greatly from skills. Maybe my wording makes these "skills" less likely to be read at the correct times, but I haven't seen an issue.
skills are just an agents.md broken up into chunks so you can manage and share them separately. unfortunately there's no real good workflow for managing or sharing them separately, so most people end up treating them exactly the same way they do agents.md.
An example skill I have is SessionMiner, which is installed via post session hooks in Claude and Kiro, and analyzes the session, what was accomplished, and whether or not it should be turned into a skill, then when it summarizes it, the decisions it came to and either fires off a message to me for followup if it decides a new skill or tool should be built, or it catalogues the approach so that future analysis can identify trends in how I use the tools.
Over time it has built me a fairly decent stable of repeatable skills and tools, and highlighted process deficiencies and nominated process changes that I have pursued.
Another skill is a communications analysis skill; I started using it summer last year I think, and it scans my communications across a broad cross-section of my activity online. It tracks the commitments I make, ensures that I follow up with people that I might miss, ranks and scores my communication against my own personal targets that I set to make sure that I am communicating effectively. As a person who has had a decently successful career despite autism spectrum and unmedicated ADHD (I was medicated, but unfortunately each medication I tried had adverse side effects), it has made me much more effective in tracking work and following through, especially on the "boring" stuff that is actually critical to being a dependable team member, and effective partner for the teams I support.
Just a couple of examples.
I can see what the goals are there, and they do make sense I suppose, but I'm not confident that what you're handing off there can be handed off to that degree.
But maybe that is not the point and the point instead is to see what the LLM thinks would be correct, and then think about that and collect learnings about the world from it. It might not be right, but it still tells you how normal people think. So that's useful.
Just a very roundabout way to achieve that, but that's fine, I guess.
It is interesting how people delineate what is a "skill". A 50 word prompt can be called a skill. This process you are describing sounds like it is highly authed and polling or hooked into multiple apps (slack?, text messages?, email?, forums, etc.) and then piping output to an LLM and to generate reports that it pushes to you based on output. You might need some data store to hold all the different communications locally as well.
That is almost a full on app/service that uses an LLM for one layer, but it is still just called a "skill".
Today Fable had to fetch a zip file from a web page with a eula prompt, then get at a file in a disk image in the zip.
This is something that will need to happen a lot as part of this project.
I asked Fable for a skill/script combo suitable for Haiku to accomplish the task, and now that task happens at minimal cost during an analysis run.
I will often make a skill out of the docs for any of the frameworks or libraries that we're using but with which I'm unfamiliar. When I'm creating that skill, I focus on idiomatic implementation and usage. It's not enough for the code to work—I want it to work "with the grain" and "through the front door", as it were.
By default, these models are just all too willing to reinvent the wheel and monkeypatch as they go.
Caching certain scripts so it's not reinvented each time with risk of error/need reviewing.
I create/edit/delete at least one skill per day. I can't imagine working effectively without those files.
The most common case: if I see something took AI too much time and tokens and it is done, I ask my Cursor immedietly after to save it as skill. So next time I do the same I just refer to skill. I don't need to remember the name of the skill, I just mention something like "do {explaining briefly the task}, you have done something similar in the past and it is saved as skill"
Giving the agent an external tool to consider the sequencing of anything with dependencies led to some creative construction and offloading sequencing not unlike offloading calculation. (I also made a `bc` skill).
https://github.com/sj4nes/clanker-tools is where I've been riffing on this. My plan is to collect not "just skills" so much but "capsules" of reliable knowledge that agents can pull without confabulation. I'm already hitting the organizational stumbles, so this HN thread is right-on-time.