Pm Skill Creator

Purpose

Walk through the full skill design process interactively — from raw idea or content to a structured, repo-compliant SKILL.md draft. Asks adaptive questions to determine skill type, scope, structure, and content, then generates a ready-to-validate draft.

This skill is the conversational complement to skill-authoring-workflow. That skill defines the process and validation gates. This one sits with you and figures out what to build before you build it.

Input

Bring the seed for the skill you want to design — half-formed is fine; shaping it is this skill's job:

• Works best with: the idea, framework, or raw content (notes, prompt sequence, article) the skill should capture
• Also useful: the skill type you suspect it is, who it's for, and any existing skills it should relate to

If you supply this inline with your request (e.g., "help me design a skill from my pricing-tiers framework"), the conversation uses that as the answer to Q1 and moves on — it won't re-ask. With no input, it opens by asking what you want the skill to help someone do.

Example: Use pm-skill-creator: I have a decision tree for choosing north-star metrics — help me shape it into a skill.

Key Concepts

When to Use This vs. Other Authoring Tools

The Three Skill Types (Decision Criteria)

• Component: One artifact or template. Self-contained. Gets referenced by other skills. Ask: "Is this a thing someone creates?"
• Interactive: Guided conversation with adaptive questions and enumerated recommendations. Ask: "Does this require back-and-forth to be useful?"
• Workflow: Multi-phase orchestration referencing other skills. Ask: "Does this coordinate multiple activities across steps?"

Skill Anatomy (Non-Negotiable Sections)

Every skill requires these sections in order:

1. Purpose — What it does + when to use it (outcome-focused)
2. Input — What the user can bring (subject, optional context), an example invocation, and the rule that inline input counts as answers already given. Must read as an invitation: zero input is fine, the guided flow covers it. Plain language only — no runtime template syntax like $ARGUMENTS
3. Key Concepts — Frameworks, definitions, mental models
4. Application — Step-by-step instructions an agent can follow
5. Examples — At least one concrete, specific example
6. Common Pitfalls — Named failure modes with consequences and fixes
7. References — Related skills, external frameworks, source material

Metadata Constraints

• name: lowercase kebab-case, ≤ 64 characters
• description: ≤ 200 characters, must include trigger cue ("Use when...")
• intent: longer repo-facing summary (no character limit)
• type: one of component, interactive, workflow

Facilitation Source of Truth

Use workshop-facilitation as the default interaction protocol for this skill.

It defines:

• Session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)
• One-question turns with plain-language prompts
• Progress labels (e.g., Context Q1/5)
• Interruption handling and pause/resume behavior
• Numbered recommendations at decision points
• Quick-select numbered response options (include Other (specify) when useful)

This file defines the domain-specific content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.

Application

This interactive skill asks up to 5 adaptive questions, then delivers a complete SKILL.md draft with frontmatter, all required sections, and repo-compliant structure.

Step 0: Session Start

Agent says:

"I'll help you design a new PM skill from scratch. This takes about 10-15 minutes and up to 5 questions. How do you want to start?

1. Guided — I'll ask questions one at a time and build the skill from your answers (recommended)
2. Context dump — Paste your raw content, notes, or framework and I'll propose a skill structure
3. Best guess — Tell me just the topic and I'll draft a skill you can refine"

Question 1: What's the Raw Material? (Q1/5)

Agent asks:

"What are we turning into a skill? Give me whatever you have."

1. A framework or mental model — A structured way of thinking about a PM problem (e.g., prioritization matrix, decision tree)
2. A template or artifact — A deliverable PMs create (e.g., PRD section, positioning statement, epic format)
3. A process or workflow — A multi-step method for completing a PM task (e.g., discovery sprint, roadmap planning)
4. A coaching or advisory topic — A domain where PMs need guided, adaptive help (e.g., stakeholder navigation, pricing decisions)

Or describe what you have in your own words.

Agent note: If the user pastes raw content instead of choosing an option, analyze the content and infer the answer. Confirm your interpretation before proceeding.

Question 2: Skill Type Decision (Q2/5)

Based on Q1 answer, agent recommends a type and confirms:

If Q1 = Framework or Template:

"This sounds like a component skill — a self-contained artifact or reference. It would include a template, quality criteria, and examples. Does that fit, or is there a conversational/adaptive element I'm missing?

1. Yes, component — It's a standalone deliverable or reference
2. Actually, it needs conversation — Users need guided questions to use it well (→ interactive)
3. It's bigger than one artifact — It orchestrates multiple steps or other skills (→ workflow)"

If Q1 = Process or Workflow:

"This sounds like a workflow skill — a multi-phase process. Does it reference or orchestrate other discrete skills/artifacts, or is it more of a guided conversation?

1. Yes, workflow — It has distinct phases and may reference other skills
2. It's more conversational — The value comes from adaptive questions and recommendations (→ interactive)
3. It's simpler than I described — Really it's one artifact with steps (→ component)"

If Q1 = Coaching or Advisory:

"This sounds like an interactive skill — guided questions that adapt based on answers, ending with enumerated recommendations. Sound right?

1. Yes, interactive — It needs back-and-forth to be useful
2. It's more of a reference — Users just need the framework, not a conversation (→ component)
3. It's a full process — Multiple phases, orchestrates other skills (→ workflow)"

Question 3: Scope and Naming (Q3/5)

Agent asks:

"What should we call this skill? I need two things:

a) A working name — lowercase-kebab-case, max 64 characters (e.g., feature-investment-advisor, user-story, discovery-process)

b) A one-sentence description — What it does + when to use it. Must fit in 200 characters and start with a verb or 'Use when...'

Give me your best attempt and I'll tighten it if needed. Or just describe the skill's purpose and I'll propose both."

Agent note: Validate the name format (kebab-case, ≤ 64 chars) and description length (≤ 200 chars) before proceeding. If either fails, suggest a fix.

Question 4: Key Content (Q4/5)

This question adapts based on skill type from Q2:

For component skills:

"What are the core elements of this artifact or framework? I need:

1. The template or structure — What sections/fields does it contain?
2. Quality criteria — What separates a good one from a bad one?
3. One concrete example — A filled-in version showing it done well

Give me whatever you have — bullet points, rough notes, or a full draft."

For interactive skills:

"Walk me through the conversation flow:

1. What's the opening question? — What does the user need to tell you first?
2. What are the 2-4 branching paths? — How do answers change what comes next?
3. What recommendations emerge? — What are the 3-5 outcomes you'd offer?

Give me the decision tree as you see it — even if it's rough."

For workflow skills:

"Map out the phases:

1. What are the major steps? (Usually 3-6 phases)
2. What's the input and output of each phase?
3. Which existing skills does this reference? (Check with scripts/find-a-skill.sh --keyword <topic>)
4. Where are the decision points?

Give me the flow — sequential, branching, or both."

Question 5: Pitfalls and Edge Cases (Q5/5)

Agent asks:

"What goes wrong when people do this badly? I need 2-3 failure modes:

1. Name the failure — Give it a label (e.g., 'Metrics Theater', 'Hero Syndrome')
2. Describe the consequence — What happens when someone falls into this trap?
3. State the fix — What's the corrective action?

If you're not sure, tell me the most common mistake you've seen and I'll help structure it."

Draft Generation

After collecting answers to Q1-Q5, the agent generates a complete SKILL.md draft including:

1. YAML frontmatter — name, description, intent, type, best_for, scenarios, estimated_time
2. Purpose — Synthesized from Q1 + Q3
3. Input — Derived from Q2/Q3: what the user provides, an example invocation, and the inline-input rule (use what's supplied, don't re-ask)
4. Key Concepts — Structured from Q4 content
5. Application — Step-by-step instructions derived from Q4
6. Examples — Concrete example from Q4 (or generated if not provided)
7. Common Pitfalls — Structured from Q5
8. References — Related skills identified during conversation + source material

Agent says after generating:

"Here's your draft SKILL.md. Before we call it done:

1. Review the draft — Does it capture your intent?
2. Run validation — python3 scripts/check-skill-metadata.py skills/<name>/SKILL.md
3. Check triggers — python3 scripts/check-skill-triggers.py skills/<name>/SKILL.md --show-cases
4. Smoke test — ./scripts/test-a-skill.sh --skill <name> --smoke

Want me to adjust anything, or are you ready to validate?"

Examples

Example: Framework → Component Skill

Q1: "1 — A framework. It's a 2x2 matrix for evaluating build-vs-buy decisions." Q2: "1 — Yes, component." Q3: "Name: build-vs-buy-matrix. Description: 'Evaluate build-vs-buy decisions using a 2x2 matrix of strategic value and implementation complexity. Use when choosing between building internally and buying a solution.'" Q4: "The axes are strategic differentiation (low/high) and implementation complexity (low/high). Four quadrants: Buy (low/low), Partner (low/high), Build (high/low), Invest (high/high). Quality criteria: each quadrant has a clear decision rule and one example." Q5: "Biggest mistake: treating it as a one-time decision. Consequence: you build something, market shifts, and you're stuck maintaining undifferentiated tech. Fix: revisit quarterly."

Output: Complete component skill with template, filled example, and the quarterly-review pitfall.

Example: Advisory Topic → Interactive Skill

Q1: "4 — Coaching topic. Helping PMs navigate their first pricing conversation with leadership." Q2: "1 — Yes, interactive." Q3: "Name: pricing-conversation-advisor. Description: 'Prepare for your first pricing conversation with leadership. Use when presenting pricing changes or new monetization to executives.'" Q4: "Opening question: What's the pricing change? Branches: new product pricing, price increase on existing, freemium-to-paid conversion, usage-based transition. Recommendations: data to bring, objection handling, framing strategies." Q5: "Failure mode: 'Leading with the Number.' Consequence: executives fixate on the price point instead of the strategy. Fix: always lead with the business case and customer impact before revealing the number."

Output: Complete interactive skill with 3-question flow, 4 branches, and enumerated recommendations per branch.

Anti-Pattern: Scope Creep

Q1: "I want a skill that covers all of product strategy — vision, roadmaps, OKRs, prioritization, stakeholder alignment, and metrics."

Agent response: "That's 4-6 separate skills, not one. Let's pick the one that matters most right now and build that. Which piece is most urgent?

1. Vision → component skill
2. Roadmap planning → workflow skill (already exists: roadmap-planning)
3. Prioritization → interactive skill (already exists: prioritization-advisor)
4. Something else

Start with one. We can build the others after."

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: Type Confusion

Symptom: Calling something a "workflow" when it's really a template with numbered steps.

Consequence: Over-engineered skill that references non-existent sub-skills and confuses users.

Fix: Apply the type decision questions from Q2 honestly. If it doesn't orchestrate other skills or have distinct phases with different inputs/outputs, it's probably a component.

Pitfall 2: Description That Doesn't Trigger

Symptom: Description says what the skill is ("A framework for pricing decisions") but not when to use it.

Consequence: Claude can't match user requests to the skill. It sits unused.

Fix: Every description must answer "Use when..." — e.g., "Evaluate pricing decisions using a structured framework. Use when choosing between pricing models or preparing a pricing proposal."

Pitfall 3: Skipping Validation

Symptom: "The draft looks good, let's ship it."

Consequence: Broken frontmatter, missing sections, failed cross-references, inconsistent catalog counts.

Fix: Always run check-skill-metadata.py and check-skill-triggers.py before considering the skill done. No exceptions.

Pitfall 4: Kitchen Sink Scope

Symptom: Trying to pack an entire domain into one skill.

Consequence: A 500-line monster that does nothing well. Too broad to trigger accurately, too long to be useful.

Fix: One skill = one job. If you need more than 6 application steps or more than 4 branches, you probably need multiple skills.

References

Related Skills

• skill-authoring-workflow — The process checklist and validation gates; use after this skill generates a draft
• workshop-facilitation — Facilitation protocol for this interactive skill

Repo Tools

• scripts/build-a-skill.sh — Terminal wizard for section-by-section skill creation
• scripts/add-a-skill.sh — Content-first automated skill generator
• scripts/check-skill-metadata.py — Structural validation
• scripts/check-skill-triggers.py — Trigger-readiness audit
• scripts/test-a-skill.sh — Full quality gate
• scripts/find-a-skill.sh — Check for overlapping skills before creating

Documentation

• CLAUDE.md — Master skill distillation protocol and quality standards
• docs/Building PM Skills.md — Manual skill creation guide
• docs/Add-a-Skill Utility Guide.md — Automated creation guide