[quote=@Beloss]
<Snipped quote>

Would you be interested in Mastering for a certain werewolf Berserker by the way?

General question to y'all, how are we dealing with spells here? I notice that the masters seem to just list the branches of magic and then state their general proficiency in them. So, if I want my lizard wizard to be able to shoot deadly rabbits out of his hat, do I just list "Hat Based Satan Majickery" and then say he is very good at it, or do I need to be able to describe exactly what species of long eared vermin he can shoot out the hat and how often? 
[/quote]

The convention is to just list competency in the school of magecraft, since magi will generally learn schools instead of individual spells. If you want to list individual spells, you can, but otherwise it's just based off rationality. If you say "Fire magecraft" then it's assumed you know how to cast fire spells and probably have spells ranging from single action to ten count. If it's something less standard like an original school then you should give some details as to what it's capable of and how it works. 

With your rabbit example, you'd need to say how it works (where the rabbits come from, etc), what sort of things it can do (are they just normal rabbits, etc), and things like its "speed" (do you need to do a greater ritual to summon a rabbit, etc). 

Also I'll be applying the conventional knowledge of magecraft to it. For instance, if you have something like "Summoning: The summoning of beings from another world. Specializes in the summoning of "horrors" from another dimension.", then I assume that all such spells are Greater Rituals and the like (and consequently unusable by a single magus ordinarily) unless you say otherwise. 

Runes are also an exception. For runes you need to list the individual runes, meanings, and effects.