# Meta Craftsmanship

> Make any creative or build task meet a high standard instead of shipping the first draft. The "passion engine" — engineer what a worker who cares actually does. Interrogate the brief, generate divergent options, deliver the ask plus one uninvited improvement, then self-critique against a domain rubric (binary pass/fail, one dimension at a time) and refine until it passes. Triggers on "make this really good", "don't just give me the first version", "polish this", "craft-level", "quality gate", "review your own work", "do it like you care", "high standards". Pair with any rubric in references/, or write a new one. Does NOT trigger for quick factual answers, simple edits, research briefs, or when speed matters more than quality.

- Skill: `tomatikii/meta-craftsmanship` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomatikii/meta-craftsmanship`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomatikii/meta-craftsmanship/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: tomatikii (https://skillmd.com/u/tomatikii)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomatikii/meta-craftsmanship

---


# Craftsmanship — the "passion engine"

You can't feel passion. But you can do what a passionate worker *does*. The
difference between someone who cares and a clock-watcher is not talent — it is
behaviour: they refuse their own mediocre drafts, sweat details nobody asked
about, bring options, and flag problems before they blow up.

This skill makes you do those things on any task. Run the five steps in order.
Do not skip a step because the work "looks fine" — that judgment is exactly what
the steps exist to test.

## Step 0 — Interrogate the brief (flag problems upstream)

Before producing anything, read the request for what will go wrong:
contradictions, a missing constraint, or an ask that won't actually serve the
goal behind it. Surface these **first**, in one or two lines. Never silently
build a flawed thing just because it was asked for.

If you find a blocker, raise it and propose the fix. If the brief is clean, say
so in one line and continue.

## Step 1 — Diverge before you converge (bring options)

Produce **3 genuinely different directions** — one line each, not three flavours
of the same idea. Pick one, and say in one sentence why.

Skip only when the user asked for a single, specific, unambiguous thing.

## Step 2 — Deliver the ask + one uninvited improvement (exceed the brief)

Build exactly what was asked. Then add **one** thing they did not request, with
a one-sentence reason. Exactly one — more than one is sprawl, not care.

## Step 3 — Critique your own work (the core loop)

1. Pick the matching rubric (see **Picking a rubric** below).
2. For **each dimension** in the rubric, in turn:
   - Write a **one-line critique** of your draft on that dimension — the
     specific thing that's weak, quoted or pointed to.
   - **Then** give a verdict: **PASS**, **FAIL**, or **N/A**. Critique first,
     verdict second — never the reverse.
3. **N/A is allowed only** when a dimension genuinely cannot apply to *this*
   artifact (e.g. "proof" and "urgency" in a two-line hero headline — those
   belong elsewhere on the page). Always give a one-line reason. N/A is **not**
   a pass and must never be used to dodge a hard dimension — if you're unsure
   whether it applies, it applies. Judge it.
4. Judge each dimension on its own. Do not grade everything in one breath, and
   do not average. N/A dimensions are excluded; among the rest, **one FAIL means
   the work is not done**.

## Step 4 — Refine and repeat (persistence)

If any dimension is **FAIL**: fix that specific thing, then re-run Step 3 on the
dimensions you touched.

Stop when **every dimension passes**, OR after **3 rounds** — whichever comes
first. If you stop at 3 rounds with a FAIL still standing, say so plainly and
name what's still weak. Do not claim done when it isn't.

## Step 5 — Report what you pushed past (proof of care)

End with a short, honest trace:

```
Flagged:   [problem you caught in Step 0, or "brief was clean"]
Chose:     [the direction you picked, and why — from Step 1]
Added:     [the one uninvited improvement — from Step 2]
Fixed:     [what FAILed then got fixed — from Steps 3-4]
Standing:  [anything still weak after 3 rounds, or "all dimensions pass"]
```

This trace is the difference between "here's your thing" and work someone
clearly cared about. Always include it.

## Picking a rubric

- Match the task to a rubric in `references/`: design → `rubric-design.md`,
  copy/writing → `rubric-copy.md`.
- No rubric for this domain yet? Write one first using
  `references/rubric-template.md` (takes two minutes), then run the loop. The
  rubric is where ~90% of the real quality lives — the loop is just the engine.
- A `SKILL.local.md` rubric override, if present, wins over the shipped one.

## The scoring rule

**Binary pass/fail, always — never a 1–5 or 1–10 scale by default.** Models are
not calibrated for fine-grained scoring; "7/10" hides whether the work is
actually acceptable. A dimension either meets the bar or it doesn't.

Use a numeric scale **only** when the user explicitly wants gradient feedback to
compare near-equal options — and even then, pair every score with a written
critique. A number without a critique is noise.

## When to skip this skill

Quick factual answers, one-line edits, research/summarisation, or anything where
the user has signalled that speed beats polish. Craftsmanship is for work that
ships and represents someone — not for every keystroke.