🛠️ Skill Audit ☀️ Light

replace the `description:` line with: description: "Design and audit 2+ cron pipelines that hand off work through shared JSON files; use for state contracts, explicit prompts, and end-to-end verification."

tighten the body — a working tighter version: # Cron Fleet Stewardship A "cron fleet" is 2+ scheduled LLM-driven jobs that share work via files on disk. Each cron writes an artifact (state JSON, draft, etc.) that the next cron reads. Common shapes: `daily-scan → pr-drafter → release-drafter` for repos; `scan → enrich → notify` for content feeds; `poll → classify → dispatch` for support workflows. This skill governs the design, audit, and operation of fleets. The single-cron patterns live in class-level skills (`inbox-watch`, `rss-watch`, `gsc-watch`, `ticket-watch`, `executive-digest`, `community-scout-scan`); this skill governs the **fleet** — the coordination contract between them. ## When to use - Adding a new scheduled job to an existing fleet - Designing a new fleet (2+ jobs sharing state) - Auditing a fleet that "looks healthy" but isn't producing output - Migrating a fleet from skill-only heuristics to explicit prompts - Investigating why a downstream cron has "no input" or "nothing to do" - Converting a single cron int…

consolidate each conflicting rule pair into a single statement; keep rules terse and non-overlapping

replace each internal reference: line 3: Use when the user wants to design, wire, change, or audit two or more scheduled jobs that share state. line 16: Use the relevant single-purpose skill for one standalone cron; this skill governs the coordination contract between multiple stages. line 113: "repo": "example-org/example-repo" line 171: Fleet-wide provider drift can leave jobs skipped after a provider rename. line 174: Scheduling several crons at the same minute can cause provider load spikes.

replace the opening paragraph: Use this skill when you need to work with cron fleet stewardship — it provides the conventions, examples, and reusable code so the agent can act without inventing the wheel.

replace the `description:` line with: description: "Configure script-only Hermes crons without workdir and debug TERMINAL_CWD write-lock timeouts."

tighten the body — a working tighter version: # Cron script-mode without a workdir ## When to use - A recurring job that only needs to **run a script** (poll an API, check a file, post a report) and needs no LLM reasoning. - Any cron that failed with a TERMINAL_CWD write-lock timeout (hermes issue #79768). ## The trap A cron job with a **`workdir` set** takes the TERMINAL_CWD write lock while it runs. If any busy agent session, another cron, or a long-running reader holds that lock, the cron job dies waiting for it and times out. This is easy to hit accidentally because `workdir` is a natural thing to set ("the job lives in this project directory"). It is only needed when the job must **anchor its terminal/session context** to a directory (e.g. an LLM job that reads `AGENTS.md`, `SOUL.md`, or other project context files). **Rule:** a script-mode (`no_agent`) cron should have **no workdir**. The script uses absolute paths anyway. ## The recipe ```python cronjob(action='create', name='<name>', schedule='every 20m', scr…

consolidate each conflicting rule pair into a single statement; keep rules terse and non-overlapping

replace each internal reference: line 35: script='<name>.sh', # relative to the configured Hermes scripts directory line 114: last_status: ok in the configured cron jobs file and inspect the job's line 115: output file in the configured Hermes cron data directory. line 122: prompt actually landed in the configured Hermes cron jobs file. line 125: the configured Hermes scripts directory for cron, or an absolute path inside the wrapper.

replace the opening paragraph: Use this skill when you need to work with cron script-mode without a workdir — it provides the conventions, examples, and reusable code so the agent can act without inventing the wheel.

tighten the body — a working tighter version: # LLM Prompt Audit A grader for system prompts. Two deliverables: (1) qualitative **grade** on 10 criteria, (2) quantitative **token-equivalence proof** if the user asks for a slim rewrite. ## When to use - "Review the intro to the LLM in folder X" - "Audit these N prompts" - "Can we get the same behavior in 8K tokens?" - "Grade this system prompt against your criteria" - Pre-ship check on a new agent's first system prompt ## Do NOT use when - The user wants the comm-style *content* updated → `agent-communication-style` - The user wants a single cron's per-turn token cost cut → `hermes-cron-token-audit` - The user wants config drift fixed → `hermes-config-audit` - The user wants to write skill frontmatter, not the prompt body → `hermes-agent-skill-authoring` ## The 10-criteria rubric Score each prompt on these 10 axes (0-3 each, sum to 30): 1. **Role clarity** — who, who for, what operative scope. Look for an explicit "You are X, serving Y" line, not just an interface descript…

consolidate each conflicting rule pair into a single statement; keep rules terse and non-overlapping

replace each internal reference: line 52: Cite the source file and line for every claim. line 68: ("role", "you are") line 69: ("named audience", "serving") line 70: ("optional capability", "when available") line 95: A query-capable discovery tool must already exist and support keyword or semantic search, not only broad category filters.

replace the `description:` line with: description: "Design and refine premium marketing sites with layered motion, distinctive typography, and anti-template polish after initial copy and layout revisions."

tighten the body — a working tighter version: # Premium Marketing Site Craft This skill is the next tier beyond the `claude-design` anti-slop rules. Use `claude-design` for general design process (surface-first, slop diagnostic, anti-slop rules). Use this skill when the user has *already* rejected one or more drafts on aesthetic grounds — copy + layout fixes have been tried and are not enough. The remaining gap is **motion, presence, and layered craft**. ## When To Use Trigger phrases (any one): - still looks AI-made / looks like a template / looks like a Webflow demo - I need sophisticated animations / background holo / moving cards - top 5% best sites / nativeads.ai tier / benchmarks against a real premium reference - I can't accept this dumb version - explicit request for really top of the line Do NOT use this skill on: docs sites, admin tools, dashboards, forms/wizards, or any surface where motion competes with monitoring or input. Motion is for marketing surfaces only. ## The 9-Primitive Motion Vocabulary A top-5% land…

consolidate each conflicting rule pair into a single statement; keep rules terse and non-overlapping

replace the `description:` line with: description: "Build a private self-report questionnaire for a reluctant or nonresponsive person, collect responses, and rank hypotheses without diagnosing."

tighten the body — a working tighter version: # Self-Report Instrument Builder (questionnaire for someone who won't talk) ## Purpose When a person won't answer messages and the obvious read — "he's avoiding us," "she's angry," "he needs space" — is a guess, build an **instrument** they fill in privately, then analyze the answers. The deliverable is a working, verified artifact plus an analysis path, not a set of suggested questions in chat. Two halves, both required: 1. **Instrument design** — question wording, order, scale types, privacy framing, and the candidate causes the instrument must discriminate between. Grounded in published research, not intuition. See `references/instrument-design-rules.md`. 2. **Build & collection** — a private web form, durable storage, an admin analysis view, and a watcher that tells the requester when answers arrive. See `references/cloudflare-pages-d1-stack.md`. **Do both in the same turn.** A question list in chat is under-delivery. A form without a defensible design is a survey tha…

replace each internal reference: line 246: - [ ] Results, privacy limits, test status, analysis method, and follow-up actions handed to the requester

replace the `description:` line with: description: "Realign tracking trees, KPIs, recurring reports, cron prompts, and standing instructions when an owner changes priorities."

tighten the body — a working tighter version: # Goal-priority pivot — applying an owner directive across every surface Trigger: the owner says something like "stop working on X — we need Y first", "drop A until B is done", "we don't have customers yet, let's get users first". A directive is only real once **every** surface carries it. This skill covers the class of "the priority changed; now make the whole system agree". ## The surfaces that must change together 1. **The tracking tree** (milestr / any task-KPI store) — retitle the new live goal, park the retired work. 2. **The KPI set** — values AND `source` fields. 3. **The recurring report crons** (daily pulse, weekly digest) — otherwise the next run re-raises the topic the owner just retired, in public. 4. **The standing instruction / SOUL / memory** — so a fresh session doesn't re-derive the old priority from context. Change 1+2 and the cron keeps reporting the old story. Change 3 and the dashboard contradicts the report. Change all four or the directive is not ap…

replace each internal reference: line 58: the named measurement path lacks the required attribution fields line 61: Writes may emit deployment logs; distinguish them from command results before proceeding.

replace the `description:` line with: description: "Diagnose and reactivate fading professional networks using LinkedIn exports, colleague data, and conversation history to build a prioritized outreach plan."

tighten the body — a working tighter version: # Professional Network Reactivation — Diagnose From Data, Not From Feeling The user's report ("my connections are fading", "I have no connections") is a **symptom report**, not a diagnosis. The correct move is to mine the user's own platform data for the mechanism before writing any plan. Guessing the mechanism produces a generic plan that the user has already received and rejected before. **Verified instance (2026-10-22, Morsy).** User said "my personal connections in the office are fading out." First read framed it as skip-level (G/C) visibility — **wrong**. User corrected: "it was not my intention. Was talking about my colleagues. Feels like i have no connections." Mining his LinkedIn export showed the real mechanism: 67 RingCentral colleagues connected, but only 5 ever messaged; 30 of 31 invites sent with **no note**; 96% of accepted blank invites across his whole network were never spoken to. The fix was "never send a blank invite again," not "attend more all-hands." ## When t…

replace each internal reference: line 23: Example. A colleague-focused audit can show that many connections never became conversations. Use the measured pattern to choose a specific behavior change instead of generic visibility tactics. line 61: Save the ZIP in a user-approved local directory and record that path before running the audit. line 81: Example finding pattern: line 82: > Employer invitations sent without a note may be accepted without any follow-up conversation. line 83: > Compare acceptance and messaging rates for invitations sent with and without a personalized reason.