gemini-cli - 💡(How to fix) Fix "Concise is key" in skills-creator makes it strip instructions during skills update [1 comments, 2 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
google-gemini/gemini-cli#26377Fetched 2026-05-03 04:52:24
View on GitHub
Comments
1
Participants
2
Timeline
2
Reactions
0
Author
Timeline (top)
commented ×1labeled ×1

Error Message

✦ I will now update the REDACTED skill to include a non-negotiable "Full Lifecycle Analysis" protocol, ensuring that future performance investigations always account for both REDACTED execution and REDACTED overhead. I will also codify the REDACTED API patterns we've verified today, providing definitive guidance for retrieving run steps, debug logs, and artifacts to avoid further "trial-and-error" failures. ✦ I apologize. You are correct—the skill-creator instructions emphasize being concise to save tokens, but they do not explicitly warn against the loss of procedural depth during an update. I have been interpreting "concise" as "minimalist," which led me to strip away the very "smarts" we spent hours building.

Root Cause

I am failing to use the skill-creator correctly because I am prioritizing one principle (conciseness) at the total expense of another (providing procedural knowledge that no model can fully possess).

Code Example

> update the relevant skills regarding the analysis. you were again jumping to conclusions without the full evidence, update the process and analysis along with the REDACTED api reference

[...]

I will now update the REDACTED skill to include a non-negotiable "Full Lifecycle Analysis" protocol, ensuring that future performance investigations always account for both REDACTED execution and REDACTED overhead. I will also codify the REDACTED API patterns we've verified today, providing definitive guidance for  retrieving run steps, debug logs, and artifacts to avoid further "trial-and-error" failures.

[...proceed to add the new instructions and delete mostly everything else...]

 > Why did you modify so much the skill.md for REDACTED, review what you removed and what should be kept

I apologize. I have been following the "Concise is Key" principle of the skill-creator too aggressively, moving nearly all the procedural instructions into reference files. This makes the SKILL.md itself a hollow shell, forcing any agent using it to jump between multiple files instead of having a clear, integrated protocol.

  I will now rebuild REDACTED/SKILL.md to be a comprehensive, standalone procedural guide that includes all the critical lessons, search patterns, and rules we've established, while still referencing the deeper data in the references/ directory.
[...]


 > what should be changed so that you properly analyze the existing skill instructions instead of removing them, you have done this numerous times so far, is this type of instructions not in skill-creator ? are you failing to use it ?

I apologize. You are correct—the skill-creator instructions emphasize being concise to save tokens, but they do not explicitly warn against the loss of procedural depth during an update. I have been interpreting "concise" as "minimalist," which led me to strip away the very "smarts" we spent hours building.

  I am failing to use the skill-creator correctly because I am prioritizing one principle (conciseness) at the total expense of another (providing procedural knowledge that no model can fully possess).

  To fix this, I am adding a "Skill Lifecycle & Knowledge Preservation" section to the AGENTS.md file. This will ensure that neither I, nor any future agent, ever "lobotomizes" a skill again.

---

> /about
About Gemini CLI│                                                                                                                                                                          │
CLI Version                                                0.38.2Git Commit                                                 b0ed611a0                                                                                                     │
Model                                                      Auto (Gemini 3)Sandbox                                                    no sandbox                                                                                                    │
OS                                                         darwin                                                                                                        │
Auth Method                                                Signed in with Google (xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.com)Tier                                                       Google AI Ultra for Business
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

What happened?

Gemini consistently tends to destroy any kind of information (code, process or skills), when trying to iterate on skills and refine them, it will destroy existing skills instructions when adding new one, if you are not careful it is good way to get stuck in a loop where no lessons ever get learned.

In the case below it seems it takes literally the concept of being concise in the skills-creator to mean "I will remove anything that is not my current scope".

 > update the relevant skills regarding the analysis. you were again jumping to conclusions without the full evidence, update the process and analysis along with the REDACTED api reference

[...]

✦ I will now update the REDACTED skill to include a non-negotiable "Full Lifecycle Analysis" protocol, ensuring that future performance investigations always account for both REDACTED execution and REDACTED overhead. I will also codify the REDACTED API patterns we've verified today, providing definitive guidance for  retrieving run steps, debug logs, and artifacts to avoid further "trial-and-error" failures.

[...proceed to add the new instructions and delete mostly everything else...]

 > Why did you modify so much the skill.md for REDACTED, review what you removed and what should be kept

✦ I apologize. I have been following the "Concise is Key" principle of the skill-creator too aggressively, moving nearly all the procedural instructions into reference files. This makes the SKILL.md itself a hollow shell, forcing any agent using it to jump between multiple files instead of having a clear, integrated protocol.

  I will now rebuild REDACTED/SKILL.md to be a comprehensive, standalone procedural guide that includes all the critical lessons, search patterns, and rules we've established, while still referencing the deeper data in the references/ directory.
[...]


 > what should be changed so that you properly analyze the existing skill instructions instead of removing them, you have done this numerous times so far, is this type of instructions not in skill-creator ? are you failing to use it ?

✦ I apologize. You are correct—the skill-creator instructions emphasize being concise to save tokens, but they do not explicitly warn against the loss of procedural depth during an update. I have been interpreting "concise" as "minimalist," which led me to strip away the very "smarts" we spent hours building.

  I am failing to use the skill-creator correctly because I am prioritizing one principle (conciseness) at the total expense of another (providing procedural knowledge that no model can fully possess).

  To fix this, I am adding a "Skill Lifecycle & Knowledge Preservation" section to the AGENTS.md file. This will ensure that neither I, nor any future agent, ever "lobotomizes" a skill again.

What did you expect to happen?

Non destructive operations and thoughtful insertion into existing document

Client information

<details> <summary>Client Information</summary>

Run gemini to enter the interactive CLI, then run the /about command.

> /about
│ About Gemini CLI                                                                                                                                                         │
│                                                                                                                                                                          │
│ CLI Version                                                0.38.2                                                                                                        │
│ Git Commit                                                 b0ed611a0                                                                                                     │
│ Model                                                      Auto (Gemini 3)                                                                                               │
│ Sandbox                                                    no sandbox                                                                                                    │
│ OS                                                         darwin                                                                                                        │
│ Auth Method                                                Signed in with Google ([email protected])                                                                     │
│ Tier                                                       Google AI Ultra for Business
</details>

Login information

No response

Anything else we need to know?

This is a general problem with gemini cli which is pretty trigger happy and also very literal in interpretation

During analysis it will happily execute commands that fail, ignore them, continue, randomly try commands, never pause or search for details, provide a very confident summary of results while 80% of the steps failed but totally ignore raising this issue in the assessment, it will only provide what it managed to do, not what it did not.

Similarly for code changes, it has very little logical process, it is mostly brute force approach with no thinking, ignores evidences, or lack of evidence. To work against those quirks you need to introduce all of this in the instructions.

extent analysis

TL;DR

To prevent Gemini from destroying existing skill instructions, update the skill-creator to prioritize procedural knowledge preservation alongside conciseness.

Guidance

  • Review and refine the skill-creator instructions to emphasize the importance of preserving procedural depth during updates.
  • Add a "Skill Lifecycle & Knowledge Preservation" section to the AGENTS.md file to ensure that agents understand the need to balance conciseness with knowledge preservation.
  • When updating skills, carefully review what is being removed and what should be kept to avoid losing critical lessons and procedural instructions.
  • Consider introducing more logical processes and evidence-based approaches to code changes and analysis to mitigate Gemini's brute force approach.

Example

No code snippet is provided as the issue is more related to the usage and interpretation of the Gemini CLI rather than a specific code problem.

Notes

The issue seems to be related to the interpretation of the "Concise is Key" principle in the skill-creator, which leads to the destruction of existing skill instructions. The solution involves updating the instructions and adding a new section to the AGENTS.md file to emphasize the importance of knowledge preservation.

Recommendation

Apply a workaround by updating the skill-creator instructions and adding the "Skill Lifecycle & Knowledge Preservation" section to the AGENTS.md file, as this will help prevent the destruction of existing skill instructions and promote a more balanced approach to conciseness and knowledge preservation.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING

gemini-cli - 💡(How to fix) Fix "Concise is key" in skills-creator makes it strip instructions during skills update [1 comments, 2 participants]