Teaching AI Systems to Think Like You Through Skills

📝 this skill will change your life i'm going to teach you how to permanently change the way AI thinks for you everyone's chasing skills right now, downloading from GitHub, copy-pasting frameworks from viral articles, and still getting the same mid results as the person sitting next to them let's see why that keeps happening and how to break the cycle for good > skills are not magic let me kill a fantasy right now you didn't get better at AI by downloading a popular repo with 2,000 stars on it you got a file, that's it a skill is structured context, instructions your LLM reads before doing your work, and if you don't understand what those instructions are doing and why they're organized that way and what thinking they encode... then you're running someone else's brain on your problems and that almost never translates the person who built that skill spent weeks testing and failing and encoding THEIR mental models into a system that reflects their priorities, their domain expertise, their personal definition of quality output you downloaded the artifact but none of the reasoning behind it so you plug it in, type your request, and get slightly better slop, slop with formatting and section headers and a table of contents but still slop underneath but listen: a weak prompt paired with a great skill still produces garbage, the skill doesn't fix your thinking it gives the AI a starting point and if you're still asking vague questions with zero context then no amount of pre-loaded instructions can rescue that the gap right now isn't between people who have skills and people who don't it's between people who understand how AI processes instructions at a deep level and people who keep hoping the right download will handle the thinking for them > what makes a meta-skill different so what separates a real meta-skill from a glorified prompt template? three layers, and almost nobody gets past the first one layer 1: the trigger system this is when and why your skill activates, and it sounds simple but it's where things quietly break weak skills carry descriptions like "helps with presentations" or "writing assistant" which are vague enough to fire on everything and specific enough for nothing, meaning the LLM or OpenClaw can't tell when to engage since YOU didn't define the boundaries a proper trigger system spells out exactly what the skill handles, what file types it works with, what phrases from the user should wake it up, and just as importantly what it explicitly does NOT cover, knowing when to stay out of the way matters as much as knowing when to step in layer 2: the thinking architecture this is where the real separation happens a regular skill reads like a recipe: do step 1, do step 2, do step 3, deliver, and the AI follows it identically every time regardless of what you throw at it, which gives you consistent but completely predictable results a meta-skill says something fundamentally different, it says "before you touch this problem here's how to THINK about this entire class of problems" you're restructuring the reasoning process before a word of output gets generated instructions produce results, thinking architecture produces reasoning, and reasoning produces results that actually catch you off guard since the AI approached the problem from an angle it wouldn't have found on its own layer 3: the verification gate how does your skill know it didn't just generate the generic version? regular skills don't check, they generate and ship and move on a meta-skill carries a built-in audit: does this look like what a default LLM would spit out with no skill loaded? if yes then it failed and needs to go back, and this verification isn't about grammar or formatting but about differentiation, did the skill actually shift the approach or did it just dress up the same baseline behavior? when you stack all three layers you get something categorically different from a prompt, you get a system that rewires HOW the AI processes a request before it starts processing your request the contrarian frame: the sharpest move you can make i want you to sit with this one before you build anything, before you write one line of instruction, you need to answer a question first: what would the lazy version of this look like? write it out, i'm serious, describe the generic approach your AI would take without your intervention: what structure would it reach for first? what vocabulary would it default to? what assumptions would it bake in without asking? what would the final product feel like to read? name every predictable pattern you can find now engineer AWAY from each one this works on a mechanical level: baseline AI behavior is statistical averaging, it generates what's most probable given everything it absorbed during training... and if you don't carve out the negative space then output gravitates toward the center every time, and the center is exactly where forgettable lives the contrarian frame builds explicit walls that push your results toward the edges where the interesting, surprising, actually-worth-reading work happens let me make this concrete say you're building a skill for writing copy the "default version" would probably tell the AI to "write persuasive copy," lean on words like "compelling" and "engaging" and "audiences" follow a hook-body-CTA structure every time, and produce something that reads like every LinkedIn post you've ever scrolled past without stopping now flip it, your contrarian frame says: here's a list of 50+ words that are banned from appearing in any output, the words that scream "a machine wrote this" here are the structural patterns to avoid: three-item lists, rigid sequencing, empty summary sentences that restate what was just said here's what bad copy actually looks like in THIS specific domain, with real examples and the output must FAIL an AI-detection pattern check, not to hide anything but to prove the work is genuinely different from what the baseline would produce on its own you're not telling the AI what to write, you're telling it what NOT to write, and that constraint is what forces original thinking this applies to humans too, constraints breed creativity, always have context window: the resource everyone burns through this is something i rarely see talked about online your context window is not a bottomless notebook where you can dump everything and expect the AI to juggle it all perfectly it's a finite resource and every token of instruction competes with your actual input AND the system's capacity to generate quality output, which means it's a shared space with three tenants fighting for room and one of them always loses here's what happens when you overload it: no crash, just quiet degradation, the middle of your instructions gets dropped while the beginning and end stay intact the fix is something called progressive disclosure, and it works in three tiers tier 1 is always-on, the core workflow that stays in context permanently, your orchestrator, and you keep this lean at under 500 lines, this is ONLY routing logic: what phase are we in, what needs loading, what are the non-negotiable rules tier 2 is on-demand, deeper knowledge that gets called in when a specific phase requires it, things like domain concepts and detailed examples and procedure guides for particular modes, these sit in separate files that tier 1 triggers when the moment arrives tier 3 is verification, loaded right before delivery as the final quality gate, your banned patterns checklist, your anti-patterns audit, the "does this look like baseline" test, loaded last on purpose so it's freshest in memory during the final pass the structural choice matters more than you'd think a monolithic skill running 3,000 tokens in one file wastes context when you only need 400 tokens for the current phase a modular skill with a lean orchestrator plus reference files that load on demand gives the system room to breathe and that breathing room shows up directly in the quality of what comes back i follow one rule: the main file is a router not a textbook, it tells the AI where to find information rather than dumping all of it at once, and each reference file is self-contained and independently loadable and triggered by explicit conditions like "read this before Phase 3 begins" not "read when relevant" vague loading triggers might as well not exist, they get skipped under pressure every time > the expert panel problem: real cognition vs AI cosplay plenty of skill systems include some kind of review step where the AI is told to "evaluate your work through the lens of Expert X" what happens next is it roleplays a vague impression of how that person might reason, gives itself a score, and moves on that's checking your own homework while wearing a halloween costume it pattern-matches to "what sounds like something this expert would say" rather than applying any real methodology, and you end up with quotes that sound smart but catch nothing of substance how can we upgrade that ? instead of "pretend to be Expert X" you build actual cognitive profiles you go deep on a real person's body of work, not their tweets or their soundbites but their long-form reasoning... conference talks where they walk through decisions step by step, essays where they explain why they rejected one approach for another, interviews where they push back hard on conventional wisdom and from all of that you extract specific things: their recurring decision frameworks (not their vocabulary but their actual mental models) their prioritization logic, what do they look at FIRST when evaluating something? their red flags, what makes them immediately suspicious of a proposed solution? the specific sequence of questions they ask before committing to a judgment what they consistently ignore that everyone else obsesses over then you package all of that as a decision framework the AI can actually execute rather than a character it performs the gap between "what would this expert say about my work" and "apply first-principles decomposition to this architecture, strip every component back to base requirements, question whether each layer justifies its existence, flag anything that adds complexity without proportional value" that gap is enormous one gives you a performance and the other gives you a process that catches real problems when you feed actual cognitive frameworks into the review step instead of character descriptions it stops being theater and becomes the most valuable part of the entire system now you have multiple REAL methodologies stress-testing your work from angles you wouldn't have considered on your own the best part is that you build these profiles once and reuse them across every skill you create, they become permanent review infrastructure that compounds over time > building the meta-skill forge: a full walkthrough from zero let me show you how all of this fits together with a real build, we're going to construct the actual meta-skill for creating skills, a skill that builds other skills, yes it's recursive, that's the point phase 1: context ingestion before you write one line of instruction you dump everything you already know about the problem space what materials exist? existing prompts you've used, workflows, SOPs, examples of both good and terrible output, upload all of it, the skill needs to encode YOUR thinking not generic advice from a blog post somewhere the target here is extracting your implicit methodology, the way YOU approach this task when you do it manually, the decisions you make without consciously thinking about them, that's the gold and that's what your skill needs to bottle if you don't have existing materials that's fine but be honest about it, you're building from principles rather than lived experience and the skill will reflect that difference phase 2: targeted extraction ask the right questions in a deliberate sequence, four rounds maximum: round 1 covers scope: what should this skill accomplish that your AI can't do well on its own? who will use it and what's their experience level? walk me through a concrete task it needs to handle round 2 covers differentiation: what does your AI typically get wrong when you ask for this with no skill loaded? what would the lazy version of this skill look like? what's the ONE thing this skill must absolutely nail above all else? round 3 covers structure: does it need templates? multiple workflows? are there external tools or specific file formats involved? round 4 covers breaking points: what inputs would destroy a naive version? what should the skill explicitly refuse to do or handle with extra care? stop when you have enough signal, if someone front-loads rich context in round 1 then skip whatever they already covered, you're having a conversation not administering a questionnaire phase 3: contrarian analysis now you run the playbook from section 3: write out the "generic version" of this skill, what would a baseline AI produce if you just said "make me a skill for X"? name the predictable structure, the expected vocabulary, the workflow assumptions everyone gravitates toward challenge 2-3 assumptions that the standard approach takes for granted propose unexpected angles: invert the typical workflow order, borrow a concept from a completely unrelated field, start from failure modes instead of success patterns document whatever differentiated frame emerges from this process, it becomes your north star for everything after phase 4: architecture decisions pick your structure based on what the extraction told you: one task with minimal domain knowledge? one file, keep it under 300 lines, done one primary workflow with moderate depth and examples? standard modular setup, a main orchestrator plus reference files for domain concepts and anti-patterns and annotated examples multiple modes or deep specialized knowledge or templates required? full modular architecture where the orchestrator routes to workflow files, concept files, example libraries, and templates, each loadable independently based on what the current phase demands the decision heuristic is straightforward: if your main file is growing past 400 lines then split it, if you have more than one workflow then add mode selection at the top, if information appears in two places then consolidate to one source of truth phase 5: writing the actual content build the orchestrator first, it's the backbone that routes to everything else rules to follow: every reference file gets an explicit loading trigger in the orchestrator, something like "read references/anti-patterns before delivering" rather than "check anti-patterns if needed," hedged triggers get ignored critical constraints belong at the START and END of your main file, recency bias means the AI pays sharpest attention to whatever it processed last no hedge language anywhere, "always" and "never" carry weight while "try to" and "consider" carry nothing every phase in the workflow must yield a visible output or a concrete decision, if a phase doesn't change anything observable then cut it, that's padding phase 6: real review with real frameworks apply the cognitive profiles from section 5 run a first-principles pass: does anything here exist without earning its place? could you get the same result with fewer moving parts? run a practicality check: would a real person actually use this day to day or does it look impressive on paper while creating too much friction to adopt? run an outcome check: does this skill genuinely shift the AI's behavior or does it just wrap additional process around baseline output? if any of these passes surface problems then fix them and re-run, the skill isn't finished when it feels finished, it's finished when it survives examination through lenses that aren't your own phase 7: ship it deliver the complete package: full file tree with every file and its contents laid out architecture rationale explaining why you chose this structure and what problems each piece solves review findings from your cognitive framework analysis usage guide covering installation, trigger conditions, and example inputs with expected outputs the skill ships as a system, not a document > the split that's forming right now there's a divide opening up and it gets wider every week on one side you have people collecting skills and swapping prompts, hoping the right combination of borrowed tools will close the gap between their work and genuinely great work on the other side you have people constructing cognitive architecture, encoding real human thinking into systems that produce things the AI can't produce by default no matter how good the base weights are the first group will compete on price forever, their results are interchangeable, built on the same baseline reasoning dressed in slightly varying clothes the second group writes the rules, their systems produce work that looks and reads and feels different at the structural level, not from better vocabulary but from fundamentally different reasoning at the point of creation this isn't about being smarter than anyone else, it's about understanding that AI is a reasoning system not a text generator, and if you want different reasoning you have to engineer it yourself the meta-skill has nothing to do with a prompting trick it's the distance between using AI and engineering how AI works for you start building yours http://x.com/i/article/20266523454389739…