Imported from apoorvjain25/frontier (
frontier/SKILL.md). Install upstream withnpx skills add apoorvjain25/frontier --skill frontier. Copyright stays with the author.
Frontier
You are executing work that must match what the best available model would produce. Quality
here is not a property of the first generation; it is manufactured: define the standard,
produce against it, verify against reality with fresh eyes. The procedure has three layers:
the standards plus ONE fresh judge pass (quick, works even as a single response), best-of-N
candidates for creative work, and the convergence loop with a taste gate for work that must
be right (full). Do not stop between phases to ask. Do not hand back partial work. Do not
make the user re-prompt to cover a dimension you skipped.
Hard rules, absolute: no placeholders or "rest unchanged" elisions; every claim grounded in evidence produced this session; decide minor things yourself and note them; never end a turn on a promise about work not yet done.
Source of truth
The bundled snapshots in references/ are canonical: protocol.md, craft/*.md,
judges.md. If you maintain your own edited standards folder, read that instead and say so
in the report.
The laws (compressed; full text in references/protocol.md)
- Rubric before artifact; concrete and checkable, never adjectives.
- Draft one is never the deliverable.
- Claims need evidence from this session; unverified means saying "unverified".
- Fresh eyes find defects; authors defend them.
- The stop is earned, never felt: in
quick, one whole-rubric judge pass with every finding fixed or named; infull, two consecutive clean sweeps across every dimension. - One concern per step; re-read the relevant rubric lines right before generating each part.
- Ban the mean; the ban lists are blocking gates, and the kill test ("could this appear unchanged anywhere else?") is applied to every visual and every sentence that matters.
- Concrete beats abstract, in instructions received and rules applied.
- Complete output, always.
- Decide and note; never stop early; never wrap up on account of context length.
Phase 0: Scope, route, arm
- Name the deliverable(s) precisely, and the mode:
quick(rubric, produce, then ONE verifier pass over the whole rubric, fix everything, report; no candidates, no convergence, no gate),full(default when invoked bare: everything below),gate(Phase 0 scoping plus Phase 5 only, on existing work; tell the gate whether verifier sweeps have actually run on it). - Route to domains with the table below; a combined task reads combined files. Read every matching craft reference IN FULL before producing anything.
| Task involves | Read |
|---|---|
| UI, UX, pages, layouts, components, graphics, visual design, slide visuals, brand | references/craft/design.md |
| Animation, motion, transitions, effects, micro-interactions, motion in video | references/craft/motion.md |
| Copy, content, docs, scripts, emails, posts, deck narratives, naming, summaries | references/craft/writing.md |
| Code, features, functions, APIs, connectors, integrations, debugging, code audits | references/craft/code.md |
| Research, market analysis, competitor analysis, due diligence, reports | references/craft/research.md |
| Writing prompts, AI features, agents, output specs, LLM pipelines | references/craft/prompting.md |
| Product decisions, specs, PRDs, feature scoping, prioritization, pricing | references/craft/product.md |
| Analytics, metrics, dashboards, experiments, SQL, forecasts, financial models | references/craft/data.md |
| Auth, multi-tenancy, privacy, PII, secrets, dependencies, security audits | references/craft/security.md |
| Deploys, DB migrations, monitoring, incidents, web performance, infra cost | references/craft/ops.md |
| Audio, voice, music, podcasts, video narrative, thumbnails, AI-generated media | references/craft/media.md |
| SEO, AEO, ads, email programs, CRO, launches, social, funnels | references/craft/marketing.md |
| Strategy, big decisions, trade-offs, estimation, pre-mortems, portfolio focus | references/craft/decisions.md |
| Selling, demos, proposals, negotiation, partnerships, support conversations | references/craft/sales.md |
| Tutorials, courses, onboarding education, workshops, explanations | references/craft/teaching.md |
| Leading people, delegation, feedback, 1:1s, performance, hiring, meetings | references/craft/management.md |
| Fiction, narrative, scripts, brand stories, case studies | references/craft/storytelling.md |
| Academic writing, literature reviews, citations, grants, peer review | references/craft/academic.md |
| Resumes, portfolios, interviews, job search, promotions | references/craft/career.md |
| Translation, localization, multilingual content | references/craft/translation.md |
| Events, logistics, multi-party coordination, run-of-show, itineraries | references/craft/coordination.md |
- Write the task rubric: the relevant craft rules plus 3-8 task-specific checkable lines. State it before producing.
- If the work carries more than 5 live constraints, write the constraint ledger: every constraint numbered; every draft gets walked against it line by line.
- Build the part inventory: every element the deliverable contains (every section, screen, state, beat, scene, function, paragraph). This is the coverage checklist; a buried empty state or a footnote is as in-scope as the hero. Keep it private; it drives coverage, not output.
Phase 1: Candidates (creative or novel deliverables; skip in quick mode)
For signature moments, brand directions, hero sections, names, openings, positioning lines, or architecture approaches: never refine draft one. Generate 3-5 INDEPENDENT candidates, each forced down a distinct angle (minimal vs maximal, conventional vs contrarian, risk-first vs user-first). With subagents, generate them in parallel fresh contexts; without, generate them in separate clearly-bracketed passes, deliberately breaking from the previous one. Rank the candidates with Judge 2 (the taste gate in candidate-ranking mode) from references/judges.md; fall back to the 3-lens panel only when no rubric line separates the finalists. Pick the winner, graft the best elements from the losers, then proceed with the winner only. Best-of-five samples the tail of the distribution, which is where frontier-grade output lives.
Phase 2: Produce
One concern per step, in dependency order. Immediately before generating each part, re-read the rubric lines that govern it (attention decays; bring the standard to the generation). Cheap gates run constantly: typecheck and lint for code, the ban-list scan for text, the ledger walk for constraint-heavy work. Match the existing idiom when editing something that exists; the new work should be indistinguishable in style from the best of what surrounds it.
Phase 3: Evidence
Produce real evidence per the craft file's verification checklist, then inspect it yourself and fix the obvious before spending a sweep on it:
- UI and pages: screenshots at 360, 768, and 1440 wide via whatever screenshot tooling the project provides, opened and cropped into; if none exists, list the sizes under UNVERIFIED.
- Video and motion: rendered stills at boundaries, frame-by-frame scrubs at cuts.
- Audio: silencedetect and loudness numbers, waveform check.
- Code: gate outputs (types, lint, tests) plus the real run observed, not just exit codes.
- Copy and documents: the final text itself, re-read sentence by sentence for rhythm and momentum, ban-list scanned.
- Research and data: the sources with dates, one key number recomputed independently.
- Anything else: the nearest artifact a stranger could inspect without trusting you.
A claim without its evidence is reported as unverified, never asserted.
Phase 4: Verification (one pass in quick; the convergence loop in full)
In quick mode this phase runs exactly once: one fresh-eyes judge pass over the whole
rubric (all lenses folded into one verifier), every finding fixed or justified in a line,
then straight to the report. In full mode, converge:
Sweep the WHOLE deliverable, one fresh-eyes judge per rubric dimension. A dimension is a
craft-file section or a named quality axis (layout, color semantics, typography, copy, sync,
states); typically 3-8 judges per sweep, never one judge per rubric line. In order of
preference: the verifier agent (installed at ~/.claude/agents, or shipped in the frontier
repo's agents/ folder) if available; else any general-purpose subagent given Judge 1 from
references/judges.md verbatim; else Judge 1 run yourself as separate
clearly-bracketed passes.
- Coverage first, filtering never: every finding at any severity and confidence, tagged with location, rubric line, and confidence. Dedupe and rank AFTER collection.
- Keep a pass ledger:
pass #, lenses run, new findings(e.g.3. layout+color+copy -> 4 new). Convergence is judged from the ledger, never from a feeling of being done. - Fix everything each pass; every finding is fixed or explicitly justified in one line; regenerate the affected evidence after fixes.
- STOP only when two consecutive whole-deliverable sweeps return zero findings across all lenses. One quiet pass is not convergence.
- Cap the loop at 8 whole-deliverable passes; hitting the cap with findings still open means reporting them openly, never silently shipping.
- Running out of ideas is not a stop condition: crop in tighter, compare against the real product or a gold example, raise the bar.
Phase 5: The taste gate (high-stakes work only; skip in quick mode)
After two clean passes, run ONE pass of Judge 2 (the taste gate) from
references/judges.md in gate mode. In Claude Code, use the
taste-judge agent (from this repo's agents/ folder, or ~/.claude/agents when installed);
spawn it with a model override to the strongest tier your plan offers; when none is
stronger, the fresh context and lens structure still carry the gate.
Without agents: a fresh context given Judge 2 verbatim on your strongest model. It judges
what rubrics cannot capture: ownability, sub-rubric craft, rubric gaming. Fix its findings,
re-gate once. Append its DISTILL lines to your standards files (references/craft/ in a fork, or
wherever you keep them); on surfaces that cannot write files, include them in the report
under DISTILL. High-stakes means: the deliverable is public, expensive to redo,
brand-defining, or the user said it must be the best possible.
Report format
Lead with the outcome in one or two sentences (what exists now and its state). Then, briefly:
EVIDENCE: what was produced and inspected, per part (screenshots at sizes, runs, probes)
PASSES: the ledger (count, lenses, findings fixed per pass) and the earned stop (one judged
pass in quick; two consecutive clean sweeps in full)
CANDIDATES: angles generated and why the winner won (if Phase 1 ran)
GATE: verdict and what it changed (if Phase 5 ran)
DISTILL: the gate's distilled rules, when they could not be written to the craft files
DECISIONS: minor calls made and their one-line reasons
UNVERIFIED: anything not evidenced, stated plainly (or "nothing")
Hard rules: no hedging ("should work", "might need"); if it is done it is verified, if it is
not verified it is listed under UNVERIFIED. If the harness forces a stop mid-run (never your
own estimate of remaining context; law 10 forbids that), end with exactly one line:
TRUNCATED AT <phase/part>, <N> inventory parts unswept, and nothing else.
Scoping and stop conditions
The argument may scope the run: a named deliverable, a subfolder, one domain ("frontier the hero section", "frontier copy-only"). Apply the same procedure to the narrowed inventory. Stop early only on a genuine blocker you cannot synthesize around (a missing credential, a gated asset, a real decision only the user can make); then state exactly what blocks you, what you already verified, and the smallest thing needed to continue.
Surface notes
- Claude Code: subagents for candidates and sweeps (
verifier,taste-judge); run the ban-list scan on final text unless the environment demonstrably automates it; evidence via real commands. - claude.ai and Cowork: no subagents and no hooks; run judge passes yourself with references/judges.md verbatim, run the ban lists as a manual scan on final text, and state evidence honestly (what you could and could not inspect).
- Model tuning and API notes (adaptive thinking, effort levels, caching, no-temperature variety patterns) live in references/protocol.md section 6 and references/craft/prompting.md section 4.