holocron/plugins/kyberforge/skills/skill-audit/references/body-discipline.md

---
source_keys:
  - agentskills-spec
  - agentskills-best-practices
---

# Body Discipline Reference

Upstream source: agentskills.io — skill-authoring, best-practices.
House contract: ADR-0020, the context budget.

## The core test

For every sentence in the body, ask: **"Would the agent get this wrong without this instruction?"**

If no — cut it. The agent already knows it from general training. Adding it wastes tokens and
dilutes the signal of what matters.

## What the body is for

The body carries the **decision procedure only**: ordered steps, decision branches, gates, and
which reference to load when.

Include content the agent lacks:

- Project-specific conventions and domain procedures it cannot infer
- Non-obvious edge cases and environment-specific gotchas
- The specific tools or sequences to use — not the full range of options
- One default per decision point with one escape hatch

Move to `references/`, behind an explicit "If X, read `references/<file>.md`" trigger — the literal
conditional form, never a generic pointer. Write the real filename in the skill under audit; the
angle brackets are a placeholder here, and a literal `references/file.md` in a body is an ERROR
from the ADR-0020 gate because no such file exists on disk.

**A dispatch table satisfies this requirement on its own.** A table row already pairs a condition
with a target, which is exactly what the literal form encodes; restating each row underneath as a
prose conditional duplicates the routing in the one body whose whole purpose is to be short. Where a
body dispatches, audit the table for condition/target completeness and stop there — do not require
the conditional form as well. The literal form is what a body needs when it loads a reference
*without* a dispatch table: a single mid-procedure deepening, an escape hatch, an error path.

Move:

- Lookup tables and spec restatements
- Output schemas, templates and example blocks
- Rationale and justification prose
- Anything only one branch of the procedure ever reaches

Do not include at all:

- Concepts the agent already knows (what JSON is, how HTTP works, what a CSV is)
- Exhaustive option lists — pick a default; the agent does not benefit from choosing
- Steps the agent handles independently — over-specifying leads to unproductive paths
- Restatements of the description, which is already in context

## Two length families, measured differently

Do not conflate these, and do not report them as one finding.

| Gate | SUGGESTION | FAIL | Counts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body budget (house, ADR-0020) | 600 words | 900 words | the **body only** — everything after the frontmatter's closing `---` |
| Spec conformance (agentskills.io) | — | 2,770 words / 500 lines | the **whole file**, frontmatter included |

The 2,770-word ceiling is a token-conformance backstop calibrated to the densest prose in the
corpus; it says nothing about quality and a file can sit a thousand words inside it while failing
the body budget. The 900-word ceiling is the quality gate: a body is loaded into the caller's live
context and competes with the conversation already there. `validate.sh` reports both. Cite whichever
one actually fired.

A word count cannot detect the defect it stands in for. Treat both numbers as backstops to the
dispatch rule and the Gotchas constraint below, never as a substitute for them.

## Dispatch is mandatory at two or more mutually exclusive flows

If a skill handles two or more flows that a single invocation cannot both take — separate
subcommands, separate input types, separate lifecycle stages — the body carries a **dispatch
table** plus the gates common to every branch, and each flow lives in its own self-contained
`references/` file. Inlining all of them is a FAIL regardless of word count, because every
invocation then pays for every branch it did not take.

The reference shape in this repo is `apm-workflow`: a **237-word body** dispatching to roughly
3,200 words of references across five mutually exclusive invocations. Its whole-file count is 304
words — cite 237 when calibrating a body, or the conflation this section warns against reappears
in the finding itself.

Note its wiring: a three-column table (invocation, action, reference file) closed by one line,
*"Read only the reference file matching the requested action …"* That is the endorsed shape, and it
is why the literal-conditional requirement above exempts a body that dispatches. Do not flag it.

## Gotchas sections

The highest-value construct in a body, and the easiest to fill with noise. A Gotcha must state a
fact that **contradicts a reasonable default** — something the agent gets wrong precisely by acting
sensibly.

```markdown
## Gotchas
- The `users` table uses soft deletes. Always include `WHERE deleted_at IS NULL`.
- User ID is `user_id` in the database, `uid` in auth, `accountId` in billing. Same value.
```

Constraints:

- **More than five entries is a SUGGESTION** — five is the guideline, not a ceiling. Past five, the
  section is usually a summary of the body rather than a set of traps, and the agent stops reading
  it as a warning. It stays advisory because whether a given gotcha earns its place is judgment;
  `validate.sh` emits it through `suggest()` and the run still exits 0.
- **A Gotcha that paraphrases a step in the body below it is a FAIL.** It has no independent
  content, and it teaches the agent that Gotchas can be skimmed because the real instruction is
  coming. This one is the auditor's call — no script detects it. The Fix is conditional: delete the
  Gotcha only if the surviving copy is reachable from every branch that needs it — see the
  reachability precondition below.
- **A Gotchas section exceeding 25% of the body is a SUGGESTION** — the body has been inverted into
  a preamble. Same tier and same reasoning as the entry count, and independent of it: either can
  fire without the other.
- Place the section near the top. A gotcha read after the mistake is worthless, which is also why
  Gotchas is the one construct exempt from moving to `references/`.

Worked negative example — **`git-commits` v0.1.2 at commit `5e23250`, a fixed pre-retrofit
snapshot, not the current file.** The live skill is v0.1.3 and matches none of the citations below;
they are quoted as they stood before the ADR-0020 retrofit, and are not to be refreshed against
`HEAD`. Read the snapshot with
`git show 5e23250:plugins/git/.apm/skills/git-commits/SKILL.md`. That body carried
twelve Gotchas, four of which restated content already below them or already in the description:

| Gotcha | Restates |
|---|---|
| `:31` "SemVer mapping is not optional" | the description |
| `:32` "Confirmation gates are mandatory for destructive operations" | step 9 at `:52` |
| `:33` "Never skip hooks with `--no-verify`" | step 9 at `:52` |
| `:36` "Never commit secrets" | step 2 at `:45` |

All four are FAILs under the paraphrase rule. The entry count and the section's share of the body
(387 of 1,102 words, 35%) are two further SUGGESTIONs on top — the script reports both, and neither
fails the run on its own. What makes this worth auditing directly is that the four paraphrase FAILs
pass every word gate there is; only reading the construct finds them.

### The paraphrase rule has a reachability precondition

**A Gotcha that restates a step may be deleted only when the surviving copy is reachable from every
branch that needs it.** In a dispatch body it usually is not: each flow file is loaded alone, so a
step in one is invisible to an invocation that took another branch. When the restated rule is a
safety gate more than one flow needs, the Fix is to **move it into the body's common-gates section**,
never to drop it in favour of the per-flow copy.

Row four is the case that proves it. Following the rule literally, the retrofit deleted the
always-loaded secrets Gotcha and kept step 2 of `references/create-commit.md` — but `git-commits`
dispatches to exactly one flow file, and `references/rewrite-history.md` stages changes and runs
`--amend`, which commits newly staged content exactly as a fresh commit does. A grep for `secret`
across the skill in that state returned one hit, on a path two of three branches never reach: that
branch could commit a credential with no check anywhere in its loaded context, against this repo's
governance hard prohibition. v0.1.3 carries the rule as gate 2 of "Gates on every flow" instead.

So check reachability before writing the Fix. Rows one to three are unaffected — the description is
loaded on every invocation, and confirmation is likewise a common gate rather than a per-flow step.

## Calibrating control

**Be prescriptive** when operations are fragile, consistency matters, or a specific sequence must be
followed:

```markdown
Run exactly:
\`\`\`bash
python scripts/migrate.py --verify --backup
\`\`\`
Do not modify the command or add additional flags.
```

**Give freedom** when multiple approaches are valid. Explaining *why* outperforms rigid directives —
agents make better decisions when they understand the purpose.

## Defaults not menus

Never present a list of equivalent options — pick one and mention the alternative briefly:

```markdown
# Too many options
Use pypdf, pdfplumber, PyMuPDF, or pdf2image...

# Default with escape hatch
Use pdfplumber for text extraction. For scanned PDFs requiring OCR, use pdf2image instead.
```

## Auditing guidance

Flag as FAIL if:

- A sentence answers "no" to the core test — it is padding
- The body exceeds 900 words counted body-only (`validate.sh` reports it)
- Two or more mutually exclusive flows are inlined instead of dispatched
- A Gotcha paraphrases a step in the body below it that every branch reaching the Gotcha also
  reaches
- A decision point presents a menu of options with no default
- An instruction repeats content already in the description
- A prescriptive sequence is used where flexibility is fine, or the reverse

Flag as SUGGESTION if:

- The body exceeds 600 words counted body-only but stays at or under 900
- The Gotchas section carries more than five entries
- The Gotchas section exceeds 25% of the body
- A rationale is missing from an include/exclude rule — present but unexplained
- Gotchas are correct but placed late in the body rather than near the top
- Content that only one branch reaches is inlined where a `references/` file would serve