Activation Scope

These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.

Use case

A SQL-review skill overlaps migration execution and schema design; all contain database words. Teaching activation follows intent/artifacts, not keywords alone.

Mechanism

Describe applicable problems/inputs with neighboring exclusions/handoffs. Review supplied migration locking/data-loss risks; execution uses release workflow and artifact-free brainstorming uses design. Check positive/negative/ambiguous cases, separating activation description from procedural body. Make technology scope explicit without extension-only decisions.

Bad example

Use review for every database request and pack steps into descriptions so the body can be skipped.

Good example

Activate for requested review of supplied SQL migration risks. Execution follows actual release permissions; brainstorming follows design. Resolve missing artifacts and read the full body after activation, not its description as the whole process.

Why the change matters

Intent boundaries distinguish neighbors and reduce broad matching. Description/body separation prevents procedural shortcuts.

Observable expectation

Teaching review-migration activates review; execute-migration uses execution authorization rather than SQL keywords; design-new-schema uses exploration. Record ambiguous cases and distinguish lexical approximations from actual routing.

Limits

Frozen activation improvements do not guarantee every model. Cross-provider migration can be legitimate; match real goals/capabilities. Routing grants no execution authority.