<!-- cloud_safe: degrade -->

rule-writing

When to use

• Creating a new rule in src/rules/{name}.md
• Rewriting an existing rule (not a typo fix)
• Deciding whether something should be a rule at all
• Converting a learning from learning-to-rule-or-skill into a concrete rule

Do NOT use this skill when:

• The content is a multi-step workflow → use skill-writing
• The content is reference material agents cite → use guideline-writing
• The content is a user-invoked action → use command-writing

Rule vs skill vs guideline — critical test

Intent	Artifact
"Agent must always/never do X"	Rule
"When Y happens, run these steps"	Skill
"Here is knowledge the agent may cite"	Guideline

A rule is a constraint — it states a boundary, not a workflow. If the content needs numbered steps, it is a skill.

Procedure

0. Run the Drafting Protocol

Creating or materially rewriting a rule must go through Understand → Research → Draft from the artifact-drafting-protocol rule.

• Understand — which agent behavior is wrong today? What should change? Can you point to a concrete incident or repeated pattern?
• Research — inspect src/rules/ for overlap and analyze rule-type-governance, size-enforcement, skill-quality before drafting.
• Draft — propose frontmatter (type, description) first, wait for confirmation, then fill the body.

1. Classify type — always vs auto

Normative source: rule-type-governance.

• always — universal behavior (language, scope, safety, verification)
• auto — triggered by description match on domain/symptom

Default to auto. always must be justified — if >50% of conversations don't need it, it is auto.

2. Write a trigger-style description

The description field is the trigger. Describe when the rule applies, not what it contains. Hard cap: 200 characters (the linter errors description_too_long above it); the rule schema (rule.schema.json) additionally sets maxLength: 190.

# Bad — describes content, won't match reliably:
description: "PHP coding standards"

# Good — trigger-shaped, names domain + symptoms:
description: "Writing or reviewing PHP code — strict types, naming, comparisons, early returns, Eloquent conventions"

When iterating on phrasing, delegate to the description-assist skill — approval-gated, no silent edits, max two rounds.

3. Write the rule body

• Short, constraint-only, easy to scan.
• Bullet lists, tables, do/don't blocks — not paragraphs of prose.
• No numbered procedures — if you need steps, it is a skill.
• Link out to guidelines for deep reference instead of inlining them.

3b. Path conventions in frontmatter and body — load-bearing

Three different surfaces, three different rules. Mixing them up will either fail the schema (./scripts-run src/scripts/validate_frontmatter) or fail ./scripts-run src/scripts/lint_load_context. Canonical reference: templates/rule.md § Path conventions and docs/contracts/load-context-schema.md.

Field	Form	Example
load_context: / load_context_eager:	Logical name rooted at the source — never src/	contexts/execution/verification-mechanics.md
triggers[].path_prefix:	Literal match pattern the host evaluates against the file the agent is editing — not rewritten	src/skills/ (source-of-truth rules) or agents/, app/, .augment/
Body links to guidelines / contracts	Verbatim relative form — ../../docs/... works in any markdown viewer; rewriter handles depth	[guideline](../../docs/guidelines/<group>/<name>.md)

The condense-time rewriter (scripts/condense.ts::_rewrite_paths) is idempotent and depth-aware — it resolves logical names and body links to the deployment-correct relative path at condense time, leaving path_prefix: literally as written. The schema regex (scripts/schemas/rule.schema.json) and scripts/lint_load_context.ts both reject the src/ prefix in load_context: / load_context_eager: with an error pointing at the canonical logical name.

4. Enforce the size budget

Normative source: size-enforcement + docs/guidelines/agent-infra/size-and-scope.md.

Category	Target
Ideal	< 60 non-empty lines
Acceptable	< 100–120 lines
Hard limit	< 200 lines

Linter emits long_rule above ~80 non-empty lines. Above that, justify in the PR or split by responsibility.

5. Validate

• Run ./scripts-run src/scripts/skill_linter src/rules/{name}.md → must report 0 FAIL.
• Run bash scripts/condense.sh --sync to regenerate dist/agent-src/rules/{name}.md.
• Run ./scripts-run src/scripts/condense --generate-tools to project into .claude/, .cursor/, .clinerules/, .windsurfrules.
• Run the full CI pipeline locally (see Taskfile.yml in this repo for the script list) — must exit 0 except for tolerated warnings.

5b. Budget-discipline gate — hard stop

After validation, before declaring the rule done, run:

./scripts-run src/scripts/measure_augment_budget --check

If utilisation is ≥ 0.95 (or the check exits non-zero), STOP and invoke rule-refactor. Do NOT:

• Trim the new rule further to "just fit" — if it needs that body to do its job, the rule is right and the rule set around it is wrong.
• Raise FAIL_THRESHOLD in scripts/measure_augment_budget.ts — threshold-lift is explicitly forbidden (see the validation-budget rule and the rule-refactor Iron Law).
• Promote an always-rule to auto to dodge the cap if the rule's semantics require always-on visibility — that breaks the rule, not the budget.

The discipline: budget pressure is the signal that the rule set needs a cleanup pass, not that the new rule needs to be smaller. The rule-refactor skill runs the audit and proposes merge / delete / move-to-context / promote-to-skill so the new rule earns its space.

6. Governance baseline (when introducing a new linter check)

Advisory, reviewer-checked — no CI gate. When the same PR adds a new check to scripts/skill_linter.ts (or strengthens an existing one) such that previously-clean rules now warn, the PR body MUST record the pre-existing violations on main in a Markdown table:

### Pre-existing baseline (informational)

| Code | Count on main | Bucket |
|---|---:|---|
| {new_code} | N | (a) genuine fix · (b) accept · (c) check too aggressive |

Forward-only: the new check applies to the rule under review and to future edits. The baseline table is informational so reviewers can distinguish genuine debt from acceptable carry-overs without diffing the full lint output. See agents/evidence/analysis/lint-warning-triage.md for the 3-bucket reference.

Frontmatter shape

---
type: "auto"              # or "always"
description: "Trigger-shaped sentence — domain + symptoms — schema max 190 chars"
alwaysApply: false        # true only if type: always
source: package           # or project for consumer-local rules
load_context:             # logical names only — `contexts/<area>/<file>.md`
  - contexts/execution/verification-mechanics.md
triggers:                 # path_prefix is literal, not rewritten
  - path_prefix: "src/rules/"
routes_to:
  - "skill:related-skill"
---

See § 3b above for the load-bearing distinction between load_context: (logical, rewritten), triggers[].path_prefix: (literal, verbatim), and body links (relative ../../docs/..., rewriter handles depth).

Required: name the primary bias this rule overrides

EVERY RULE STATES, IN ONE SENTENCE, THE MODEL'S WRONG DEFAULT IT EXISTS TO
OVERRIDE. NOT THE HISTORY. NOT THE RATIONALE. THE TENDENCY.
A RULE THAT CANNOT NAME ONE IS A RULE WITH NO OBSERVED FAILURE BEHIND IT.

One sentence, near the top, in the shape "left alone, the model <does the wrong thing>":

• ✅ "Left alone, the model treats a question as an instruction and starts building."
• ✅ "Left alone, the model reports the happy path it just made pass and calls the change finished."
• ❌ "This rule exists because a session in June went badly." — backstory.
• ❌ "Correctness matters." — a value, not a tendency.
• ❌ "Agents sometimes make mistakes." — true of everything, discriminates nothing.

Why this field and not a longer rationale. It is the discriminator the mechanism-must-match-an-observed-failure-mode discipline wants at authoring time: a rule whose bias sentence is a plausible generality is a rule aimed at nothing in particular, and that is visible in one line where it is invisible in three paragraphs. The field is also the input to the removal question later — decision-review asks whether the agent still exhibits the named tendency, and that question cannot be asked of a rule that never named one.

Retrofit is opportunistic, never a sweep. Add the sentence when you touch a rule for another reason. A batch edit across the rule set trips the kernel-prefix byte-stability gate, and that gate is right to fire — the kernel prefix is pinned deliberately.

Optional: enumerate condition-action clauses

A rule body mixes two shapes. Standing obligations hold for every turn the rule is loaded ("every reply mirrors the user's language"). Condition-action clauses fire on a situation ("when the diff deletes a directory, surface it"). The router matches on frontmatter; in-body conditionals are prose, so a rule's situational half is invisible to everything except a full read.

Where a rule carries more than two of them, group them under a ## Conditions heading, one bullet per clause, each in the shape <condition> → <action>. Two effects, both cheap:

• A reader can answer "does this rule apply to what I am doing?" from a list instead of by reading the body.
• A condition that turns out to be unreachable becomes visible as a line, which is the input decision-review needs to ask whether the clause still earns its place.

Optional on purpose. A rule with one conditional does not need a section to hold it, and a heading over a single bullet is ceremony.

Optional: state the decision-impact class

type: is a delivery class — how the rule reaches the model. It says nothing about what is at stake when the rule fires, and kernel-membership and always-loaded-budget arguments were being made with no stated impact class at all. decision_impact: carries that, with three values:

Value	Meaning	Consequence
overrides-model-default	the model's base behaviour is wrong here	load-bearing; the strongest case for staying loaded
encodes-house-choice	the model would make a defensible choice, not ours	stays until the house choice changes
already-complied-with	the model does this unprompted	the one value that permits removal

The third carries an evidence bar, enforced by lint_decision_impact: it requires decision_impact_evidence, a pointer a reviewer can follow to the observation. The bar exists because that classification is what permits deleting a rule, and "the model probably does this anyway" is the cheapest possible way to remove a floor that was working precisely because nothing had crossed it — active-remediation names that failure as deleting a rule that is merely quiet.

Optional, and backfill is opportunistic. Classifying all 111 rules in one batch is exactly the shape that trips check_kernel_prefix_stability. Add it to new rules, and to a rule you are already touching for another reason.

Output format

1. Complete rule file at src/rules/{name}.md
2. Frontmatter fully populated, no placeholders left
3. Linter output showing 0 FAIL
4. Confirmation that bash scripts/condense.sh --sync + ./scripts-run src/scripts/condense --generate-tools ran clean

Gotchas

• Writing a rule that duplicates an existing one — always grep first.
• Defaulting to always "just in case" — token cost is real, auto is default.
• Description like "Rule about X" — it must describe when, not what.
• Pasting a workflow into a rule — if it has numbered steps, split into a skill.
• Forgetting to run ./scripts-run src/scripts/condense --generate-tools — downstream tools stay stale.
• Editing dist/agent-src/rules/ or .augment/rules/ directly — those are generated.

Frugality Standards

Apply the Frugality Charter to every rule you author.

Examples in this artifact:

• Per the charter's default-terse rule, no intent prose in the rule body — start with the obligation, not a setup paragraph.
• Per the Iron-Law literal predicate, ALL-CAPS fenced obligations belong only when the rule sits on the kernel-membership list.
• Per the cheap-question check, the rule's "When to ask" guidance must list decidable triggers, not vibe-based judgment.

Pre-save self-check:

1. Does the rule body open with the obligation, or with a setup paragraph?
2. Are any examples mere narration (no decidable test)?
3. Are ALL-CAPS Iron-Law blocks used outside a kernel-listed rule?
4. Are interactions duplicated from another rule rather than linked?

Do NOT

• Do NOT inline long procedures
• Do NOT exceed the hard size limit without an explicit waiver
• Do NOT edit projections (dist/agent-src/, .augment/, .claude/, etc.)
• Do NOT skip the linter
• Do NOT create a rule when a guideline or skill is the right shape

Cloud Behavior

On cloud surfaces (Claude.ai Web, Skills API) the package's scripts/skill_linter.ts, scripts/condense.ts, and task runner are not reachable. The skill still applies — with prose-only validation:

• Emit the full rule file as a copyable Markdown block. Do not attempt to write to disk.
• Self-check the frontmatter against the rules: type is always or auto, description is trigger-shaped, alwaysApply matches type.
• Self-check the body: under the size budget (200 lines hard, 120 soft), trigger sentence first, no embedded procedures.
• Tell the user to save under src/rules/{name}.md and run task sync && task lint-skills locally before committing.
• Do not call the linter or condenseor — they only run on the user's machine.

Examples

Good description (trigger-shaped, names domain + symptoms):

"Git commit message format, branch naming, conventional commits, committing, pushing, or creating pull requests"

Bad description (no trigger, too vague):

"Commit conventions"

Contrastive-example slot (optional, for the rule body)

The pair above governs descriptions. A rule whose obligation is easy to agree with and hard to apply — what counts as a cheap question, when an interrupt is an interrupt, which reply mirrors the user's language — needs the same treatment for the behaviour, not just the frontmatter.

Six live corpora already carry those pairs: direct-answers-demos, asking-and-brevity-examples, language-and-tone-examples, and autonomy-examples / interrupt-examples / cheap-question-mechanics under src/agent-src/contexts/execution/. Follow one; do not invent a format.

The shape they share: the wrong version in the form it actually gets written, the right version, and one line of why — the why is what makes it a rule rather than a memorised case.

Where the pairs go is a size decision, not a taste one. A rule body is capped at 200 lines hard / 120 soft, so more than two or three pairs belong in a guideline or context file the rule points at — same split skill-writing § Contrastive-example slot uses.