Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mdcms-ai/mdcms. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mdcms-ai/mdcms/main/.ai/skills/writing-skills/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mdcms-ai/mdcmsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/mdcms-ai/mdcms/writing-skills)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mdcms-ai/mdcms/writing-skills"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mdcms-ai/mdcms/writing-skills.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00020 | $0.05053 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.02527 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.01011 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00505 |
Grade A, and why
writing-skills scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
80% identical to writing-skills — 80 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 656 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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, ~/.agents/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 |
What ships with it
6 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 656 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 38ba648975ae
writing-skills is a skill published in the GitHub repository mdcms-ai/mdcms (22 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 5,053 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 80% identical to writing-skills, differing in 80 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
server-side-calls
Call tRPC procedures directly from server code using t.createCallerFactory() and router.createCaller(context) for integration testing, internal server logic, and custom API endpoints. Catch TRPCError and extract HTTP status with getHTTPStatusCodeFromError(). Error handling via onError option.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
agent-browser
Browser automation for testing and verification. Use when you need to interact with web UIs, verify visual changes, fill forms, or capture screenshots.
ux-acceptance-coordinator
Coordinate black-box, agent-driven UX acceptance journeys against a disposable EmDash admin site. Use when preparing, dispatching, verifying, or reporting a manual browser journey performed by a separate tester agent. Do not use for deterministic Playwright tests or ordinary code review.
ux-acceptance-tester
Perform a goal-driven, black-box UX acceptance journey in a browser and report the path, friction, and observable outcome. Use only in an isolated tester context with a supplied start URL and brief.
repro-api
Reproduce an EmDash bug below the browser layer -- REST handlers, CLI, MCP, migrations, schema registry, or build tooling. No browser. Prefer a failing vitest test in the affected package, run in an attached container.