Add Harry writing style skill

2026-06-03 21:28:18 +01:00
parent 6ee5596160
commit 5d71aa1308
27 changed files with 1567 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Bad Examples: spec-direction
+
+1. > Sure, I'll get started by reviewing the repository and then I'll make the requested changes.
+
+   Fails because it is assistant narration. Harry's instruction style does not need an acknowledgement wrapper.
+
+2. > It would be helpful to consider committing the first pass and opening a pull request when ready.
+
+   Fails because it turns a direct command into a suggestion.
+
+3. > Please ensure the implementation is robust, maintainable, and aligned with best practices.
+
+   Fails because it replaces the actual quality bar with generic filler.
+
+4. > Could you use the relevant GitHub tooling if that seems appropriate?
+
+   Fails because "use the github skill" is the actual instruction. Do not hedge tool choice when the tool is named.
+
+5. > Before proceeding, it may be worth cleaning up any lingering processes to avoid environmental issues.
+
+   Fails because it softens "Clean up after yourself first" into safety prose.
+
+6. > I'd recommend creating separate issues for the temporary and database-related concerns.
+
+   Fails because the output shape is a command: create two issues separately.
+
+7. > Let's make sure we have sufficient transparency in the fill behaviour.
+
+   Fails because it bloats "More transparency please on the fill" without adding information.
+
+8. > Once complete, provide a summary of the benchmarking methodology and results in the pull request discussion.
+
+   Fails because it is too polished for "add a comment to the PR about how we benchmarked queries with benchmark results".
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Good Examples: spec-direction
+
+1. > commit and push your changes
+
+   Works because it is just the command. No setup, no politeness wrapper.
+
+2. > commit the first pass, open a PR with concise description of the changes
+
+   Works because it gives the sequence and the quality bar in one sentence.
+
+3. > before you do that, you've opened loads of patterm processes. Clean up after yourself first.
+
+   Works because it corrects the agent's immediate behaviour before allowing more work.
+
+4. > Your job buddy, get testing
+
+   Works because the judgement is in the tone. Do not rewrite this as a polite request.
+
+5. > use the github skill!
+
+   Works because it is short and specific. The exclamation is instruction pressure, not cheerfulness.
+
+6. > on prod big dawg, use railway cli
+
+   Works because it names the environment and tool without extra framing.
+
+7. > We shouldn't show whether it's a title or semantic match in the search dropdown. Show the video creator's name instead.
+
+   Works because it gives the rejected behaviour and the desired replacement.
+
+8. > Create two issues on gitea for both temp and database separately
+
+   Works because it specifies the output shape: two issues, split by topic.
+
+9. > Explore Catwalk admin/tRPC/TUI/manual trigger paths for pollTopStreams, SocialBlade, Twitter, Twitch VODs, and agent.social-discovery. Identify API names/tests that need queue enqueue changes and duplicate handling. Do not edit. Return concise findings.
+
+   Works because it gives scope, named targets, write constraints, and expected output.
+
+10. > yeah commit and push, resolve the copilot threads, add a comment to the PR about how we benchmarked queries with benchmark results
+
+   Works because it keeps the operational chain in one rough but clear sentence.
+
+11. > More transparency please on the fill
+
+   Works because it is terse design direction. Do not inflate it into UX rationale unless asked.
+
+12. > quiz me on what the patch does
+
+   Works because it asks for a specific interaction mode, not an explanation.