That does raise the question of what the value is of a "skill" vs a "command". Claude Code supports both, and it's not entirely clear to me when we should use one vs the other - especially if skills work best as, well, commands.

The practical distinction I've found: commands are atomic operations (lint, format, deploy), while skills encode multi-step decision trees ("implement feature X" which might involve reading context, planning, editing multiple files, then validating).

For context window management, skills shine when you need progressive disclosure - load only the metadata initially, then pull in the full instructions when invoked. This matters when you have 20+ capabilities competing for limited context.

That said, the 56% non-invocation rate mentioned elsewhere in this thread suggests the discovery mechanism needs work. Right now "skill as a fancy command" may be the only reliable pattern.

IMO the value and differentiating factor is basically just the ability to organize them cleanly with accompanying scripts and references, which are only loaded on demand. But a skill just by itself (without scripts or references) is essentially just a slash command with metadata.

Another value add is that theoretically agents should trigger skills automatically based on context and their current task. In practice, at least in my experience, that is not happening reliably.