The worth-it gate (step 4)
A candidate passes ONLY if it would genuinely make future work faster or better. Apply this checklist to every candidate. If none pass, report a clean negative — that is a valid, valuable result.
The gate (Jesse Vincent's test)
Keep a candidate only if at least one is true:
- Non-obvious process — the model would not do this correctly by default; it needs the steps spelled out.
- Human taste / judgment — there is a quality bar, voice, or editorial call that is not derivable from the task alone.
- Divergent-from-standard — the user does it differently from the common/default way, and that difference matters.
Reject if the honest answer is "Claude already does this well in one shot." Mechanical competence the model already has is worth zero as a skill.
Worked examples (from the verysmallwoods tweet→blog drill)
- PASS — "check the reply thread under the source tweet for factual corrections and surface them at the top." Non-obvious editorial process; the model would not do it unprompted.
- PASS — "when translating a first-person company blog, the author's 'we' conflicts with the translator's framing; adjust the voice." Taste/judgment.
- REJECT — "run
git commitandgit push." The model already does this; no skill needed. - REJECT (as a new skill) — "publish to substack/zsxq/x." Loaded skills already cover it → REUSE/UPDATE, not create.
After the gate
For each surviving candidate, go to the create/update/reuse decision (SKILL.md step 5). Briefly note rejected candidates in the proposal so the negative is auditable.