agentleFS
JlosevJlosev/agent-skills/skills/prompt-engineer/SKILL.md

prompt-engineer

Skill1 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub

Lint and review agent instruction files (SKILL.md, agent.md, CLAUDE.md, protocol) for executability. Triggers prompt-engineer, lint skill, review SKILL.md, Publication DoD, quality checklist, agent instructions review. Not for scaffolding a new skill from scratch, chat-prompt optimization, or model-specific prompt research.

74 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use idea-validator, debugger and 8 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • dipaulavsSkill

    idea-validator

    Validates app ideas before building. Analyzes market saturation, competitors, real demand vs stated interest, solo builder feasibility (2-4 weeks timeline), and monetization potential. Use when user asks to validate an idea, evaluate a concept, check if idea is worth building, or before starting a new project.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • JohnJBorenSkill

    debugger

    Systematic debugging workflows, root cause analysis, and troubleshooting patterns

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • VercelSkill

    technical-writer

    Write, review, and edit developer documentation for SDKs, libraries, and frameworks, including sites such as ai-sdk.dev and chat-sdk.dev. Use for getting-started guides, tutorials, API references, conceptual explanations, integration guides, migration guides, troubleshooting, and code examples.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • JetBrainsSkill

    webapp-testing

    Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • JetBrainsSkill

    doc-coauthoring

    Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    api-design

    Guide for designing and documenting RESTful APIs. Use when asked to design an API, create endpoints, or document an API.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 65 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read references/quality-guide.md – publication DoD + quality criteria + type checklist + anti-patterns.

    line 52
  2. Distinctive:

    Read the target file.

    line 53
  3. Distinctive:

    If lint found ≥1 major on the quality criteria – propose 1 concrete improvement for prompt-engineer itself.

    line 101
  4. Distinctive:

    If invoked from a factory pipeline: run only as a Task from the orchestrator.

    line 131
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not change meaning; do not add new content

    line 134
  6. Distinctive:

    always-on short steps stay in the body.

    line 158
  7. Very specific:

    Use «Trigger phrases …» instead of «Triggers:» in description (avoid :)

    line 159

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 65 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Prompt Engineer

Lint/review agent instruction files. Criteria live only in references/quality-guide.md (do not duplicate them here).

{SKILL_DIR} = directory of this SKILL.md.

Scope

In: SKILL.md, agent .md, CLAUDE.md, protocol
Out: runtime debug, strategy, scaffold from scratch, chat-prompt optimization, model-specific prompt research
Fallback: generic checklist + ask the type

Preconditions

  • Target file path from $ARGUMENTS. Нет пути → спроси в чат, не угадывай файл.
  • test -f "{SKILL_DIR}/references/quality-guide.md". Нет файла → стоп: «нет references/quality-guide.md».
  • test -f "{SKILL_DIR}/scripts/lint_metrics.sh". Нет файла → стоп: «нет scripts/lint_metrics.sh».
  • Если вызов из factory – только после validation checkpoint оркестратора.

Algorithm

Step 1: File and type

Path from $ARGUMENTS or ask.

SignalType
skills/ + name/descriptionSKILL.md
agents/ + name/toolsAgent
CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
protocols/Protocol
elseGeneric

Step 2: Analyze

  1. Read references/quality-guide.md – publication DoD + quality criteria + type checklist + anti-patterns. For multi-step / AskQuestion skills also run Workflow Enforcement Patterns.
  2. Read the target file.
  3. For each criterion: check → severity (critical/major/minor) + a concrete fix (→).
  4. Determinism: rigid CLI sequences → suggest moving them to scripts/.
  5. Quality criteria (SKILL.md only): clarity, structure, self_containment, safety, preconditions, agent_agnostic, examples, self_improvement – table ✅/❌ + fix.

Metrics script:

"{SKILL_DIR}/scripts/lint_metrics.sh" <file>

Description metrics: character length, : check, trigger phrases, negative triggers – per DoD §Discovery.

Also: compression, anti-patterns table, token estimate (words×1.3), extraction (conditional ≥30 lines → references/).

description_chars из скрипта: major (>400) или critical (>1024) – та же severity в отчёте.

missing_deps из скрипта → major: файл из references/, scripts/ или phases/ назван, но его нет. Оценщик Hub видит только тело SKILL.md, поэтому в теле остаётся сам шаг, в файл уходит длинная процедура.

Step 3: Report

## Prompt Engineer: [file]

**Type:** … | **Size:** ~N tok (~M lines) | **DoD:** Pass/Fail

### Critical / Major / Minor
- [loc]: [issue] → [exact fix text]

### DoD Checklist (SKILL.md)
| Frontmatter | Discovery | Body | Safety | Metrics | → ✅/❌ |

### Quality (SKILL.md)
| clarity | structure | self_containment | safety | preconditions |
| agent_agnostic | examples | self_improvement | → score band |

Score band: 0 critical + ≤2 major → likely 70–85; else likely <60.

### Anti-patterns | What is good | **Grade:** A/B/C/D
A=0 critical ≤1 major | B=0 critical ≤3 major | C=1+ critical

Step 4: Apply

Спроси «Apply? (all / selected / no)». Если нет AskQuestion, тот же вопрос текстом в чат. Правки – точный текст замены.

Step 5: Post-run

If lint found ≥1 major on the quality criteria – propose 1 concrete improvement for prompt-engineer itself. Format: «Gardener: …».

Example

In: «lint SKILL.md – wall of text, path: .agents/skills/foo/SKILL.md»

## Prompt Engineer: foo/SKILL.md
**Type:** SKILL.md | **Size:** ~420 tok (~180 lines) | **DoD:** Fail
### Major
- description: internals instead of triggers → «Use when… Triggers lint, review prompt…»
- body: no ## Example → add a section with input/result
### Quality
| clarity ❌ | examples ❌ | preconditions ❌ | … |
**Grade:** C
Apply fixes? (all / selected / no)

In: «lint agent .agents/agents/cf-publisher.md»

## Prompt Engineer: cf-publisher.md
**Type:** Agent | **Size:** ~200 tok | **DoD:** Fail
### Major
- description: нет when to delegate → «Use when the parent must publish a Confluence page»
**Grade:** C

Hard Stop Rules

  • If invoked from a factory pipeline: run only as a Task from the orchestrator; the parent does not lint inline.
  • Report before edits
  • CLAUDE.md – warn before apply (project-shared)
  • Do not change meaning; do not add new content
  • : in description – critical

Definition of Done

  • Report with severity + DoD checklist + quality table (SKILL.md) + grade shown
  • User answered the apply prompt
  • Applied fixes = exact text replacements
  • Post-run Gardener note if ≥1 major on quality criteria

Check commands

"{SKILL_DIR}/scripts/lint_metrics.sh" <file>
grep -A5 '^description:' <file>   # no ':' in value lines

Gotchas

  • A baseline without the guide finds the obvious; value = DoD + quality table + anti-patterns + fix texts
  • External quality_score from an evaluator is not replaced by the score band
  • preconditions ≠ Hard Stop Rules
  • agent_agnostic minor does not block publication
  • description >400 major; : critical
  • always-on short steps stay in the body; an extracted step is read at entry, not all phases up front
  • Use «Trigger phrases …» instead of «Triggers:» in description (avoid :)

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.