本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

creating-instructions

Creates GitHub Copilot instruction files for VS Code, including repository guidance and scoped `.instructions.md` rules. Use when encoding project conventions, choosing `applyTo` patterns, or shipping install-ready instruction examples with rationale and guardrails.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testersスター 118(GitHub 118 + cccskills 0)
連携ツールGitHub

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(6)

  • SKILL.md5.8 KB
  • resources/copilot-instructions.example.md2.6 KB
  • resources/copilot-instructions.template.md1.7 KB
  • resources/custom-instructions.example.instructions.md1.5 KB
  • resources/custom-instructions.template.instructions.md849 B
  • resources/instructions-quality-checklist.md1.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Creating Copilot Instructions

Use this skill when the goal is to package stable rules for GitHub Copilot instead of writing one-off guidance in chat. It helps turn repository conventions into clean instruction files that are easy to install, reason about, and maintain.

When to Use

Use this skill when the user asks for things like:

  • "create a repo-wide Copilot instruction file"
  • "write a .instructions.md file for these tests"
  • "choose the right applyTo pattern"
  • "turn our coding rules into installable instructions"
  • "fix an instruction file that is too broad or too vague"

Typical scenarios:

  • first-time setup of copilot-instructions.md
  • adding targeted guidance for a folder, language, or test type
  • splitting an overgrown instruction file into smaller units
  • preparing public examples for a team repository or a shared collection

What Good Looks Like

A strong instruction contribution usually includes:

  • the right instruction type for the job: repo-wide or scoped
  • a narrow, predictable scope
  • short declarative rules with a reason when the rule is not obvious
  • examples only where they materially improve compliance
  • no workflow logic, no agent personality, and no prompt-specific scripting

Instruction Design Rules

  • Rules over essays - prefer short, stable guidance that survives multiple tasks.
  • Scope first - the applyTo pattern is part of the design, not an afterthought.
  • Reason when needed - if a rule is surprising, explain the consequence in the same bullet.
  • Examples beat abstraction - include a preferred and avoided example for tricky patterns.
  • Context is expensive - avoid loading broad instructions that repeat what tools already enforce.

Workflow

Phase 0: Frame the request

Clarify or infer:

  • whether the user needs repo-wide guidance or scoped instructions
  • who will install the file: one user, a team, or a public collection
  • which files or folders must be affected
  • what conventions are stable enough to encode as rules

Phase 1: Study the source material

Before drafting:

  • inspect existing instructions, README notes, and representative source files
  • separate lint or formatter-enforced behavior from guidance that still needs human judgment
  • collect only durable conventions; avoid temporary migration notes unless explicitly requested

Phase 2: Choose the file shape

Use this decision rule:

  • create copilot-instructions.md when the rules apply to nearly every task in the repository
  • create *.instructions.md when the rules apply to a clear file pattern, directory, or workflow boundary
  • split files when one audience would otherwise inherit unrelated rules

Phase 3: Draft the instruction file

For scoped instruction files:

  • choose a descriptive filename in kebab case
  • write frontmatter with description, applyTo, title, and name when helpful
  • keep each rule compact and testable
  • add examples only for non-obvious conventions

For repo-wide instruction files:

  • describe architecture, stack, folder responsibilities, commands, and non-obvious conventions
  • organize by headings so Copilot can find the right rule quickly
  • keep it opinionated enough to be useful but not so exhaustive that it becomes background noise

Phase 4: Create the artifact bundle

Always prepare:

  • the main instruction file
  • a short installation note or target path
  • at least one reference template or example when the instruction is meant to be reused
  • a brief summary of why the scope and file type were chosen

Use these supporting resources:

  • ./resources/copilot-instructions.template.md
  • ./resources/custom-instructions.template.instructions.md
  • ./resources/copilot-instructions.example.md
  • ./resources/custom-instructions.example.instructions.md

Phase 5: Validate before handoff

Check the final result against ./resources/instructions-quality-checklist.md.

Pay extra attention to:

  • applyTo being narrow enough to avoid accidental always-on context
  • rules being declarative, not step-by-step workflows
  • examples matching the claimed rule
  • no duplication of agent behavior, prompt workflow, or skill instructions

Common Failure Modes

  • using applyTo: '**' for advice that only matters in one part of the repo
  • turning the file into a tutorial instead of a rule set
  • copying linter or formatter defaults instead of encoding missing conventions
  • mixing multiple unrelated audiences into one instruction file
  • writing rules without enough context for Copilot to understand why they matter

Resource Map

  • ./resources/copilot-instructions.template.md - repo-wide starting point for a project constitution
  • ./resources/custom-instructions.template.instructions.md - scoped instruction template with frontmatter
  • ./resources/copilot-instructions.example.md - worked repo-level example for a test automation repository
  • ./resources/custom-instructions.example.instructions.md - worked scoped example with concrete rules
  • ./resources/instructions-quality-checklist.md - final review checklist before shipping

Definition of Done

A task using this skill is complete when:

  • the chosen instruction type matches the actual scope
  • the file is install-ready and placed in the right target location
  • the rules are concise, durable, and non-duplicative
  • supporting template or example material exists when the artifact is meant for reuse
  • the final result passes the quality checklist without obvious ambiguity

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Defines, computes, and interprets test and quality metrics: pass rate, flake rate, suite duration, defect escape rate, time to detect, and coverage with its caveats. Use when building a QA dashboard, reporting suite health to stakeholders, comparing releases over time, or when a coverage percentage or a bug count is being treated as a measure of quality.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers1182026年8月27日 更新

Analyzes diffs, changed files, hotfixes, and release candidates to identify where regression risk spreads and what must be retested first. Use when scoping retest after a change, reviewing QA impact for a pull request, or building a minimal confidence suite for release validation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers1182026年8月27日 更新

Writes and reviews API automation tests with Playwright Test, covering setup/teardown, assertions, data management, and hybrid API+UI flows. Use when creating backend API tests, contract checks, data-driven API coverage, API+UI hybrid workflows, or reviewing existing Playwright API suites.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers1182026年8月27日 更新

Measures the risk that code shipped without anyone understanding it: a teach-back attestation on high-risk changes, a risk band from changed-code complexity, diff size and whether a human explanation accompanied it, and optional AI-authorship provenance. Findings stay advisory by design. Use when an AI-assisted codebase grows faster than the team reads it, when reviews are rubber-stamped, when nobody can explain a module that ships weekly, or when leadership asks how much of the code the team can actually maintain.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers1182026年8月27日 更新

Produces an evidence-backed go/no-go recommendation: exit criteria status, open-defect risk profile, coverage against risk, environment parity, rollback readiness, and the residual risk stated plainly. Use when preparing a release sign-off, when someone asks whether a build is ready to ship, or when a decision to release is being made on impressions rather than evidence.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers1182026年8月27日 更新

Records human verification - code review, exploratory sessions, UAT, accessibility passes, UX and observability reviews - as dated, attributed attestations in a register, so human-centric practices stay in the quality contract without pretending to be automated checks. Use when a strategy requires verification no tool can prove, when sign-off evidence is scattered across chats and tickets, when a gap matrix needs to distinguish "attested" from "passed", or when an audit asks who verified what and when.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers1182026年8月27日 更新

jaktestowac のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する