structure-prompt
Skill9 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Turn a rough request into a structured, production-grade prompt. Classifies which prompting dimensions apply (product verification, structured high-stakes detail, constraints-upfront, scannable structure, search priority, internal-first sourcing), fills a prompt template, and returns a copyable prompt plus a note on what was applied or omitted. Use for prompt architect, structure a prompt, harden a prompt, or turn an ask into a production prompt.
In this repository43 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibility-auditSkill
- add-documentationSkill
- add-error-handlingSkill
- address-github-pr-commentsSkill
- agent-risk-reviewSkill
- agent-work-receiptSkill
- automation-roi-auditSkill
- blind-spot-passSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- commit-changes-mainSkill
- commit-same-branchSkill
- commitSkill
- create-pr-mainSkill
- debug-issueSkill
- decision-auditSkill
- define-agent-goalSkill
- design-agent-loopSkill
- fix-compile-errorsSkill
- fix-git-issuesSkill
- gauntlet-loopSkill
- generate-api-docsSkill
- generate-pr-descriptionSkill
- git-sync-workspaceSkill
- instruction-ablationSkill
- light-review-existing-diffsSkill
- lint-fixSkill
- lint-suiteSkill
- merge-open-prsSkill
- optimize-performanceSkill
- pathfinderSkill
- prompt-eval-debugSkill
- refactor-codeSkill
- requirement-to-implementationSkill
- run-all-tests-and-fixSkill
- scoped-auditSkill
- security-auditSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- setup-new-featureSkill
- tddSkill
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-reviewSkill
- update-memory-bankSkill
- update-readmeSkill
- write-unit-testsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
Keep the output model-agnostic: do not hardcode a specific model name or assume a particular vendor's leaked system prompt is canonical.
- Distinctive: line 39
Run phases in order.
- Distinctive: line 44
If the request is missing, ask one focused question before proceeding.
- Distinctive: line 100
Model-agnostic: no hardcoded model names; no claim that a leaked system prompt is canonical.
- Distinctive: line 101
Verify product facts: when the prompt asks about a tool's current behavior, instruct it to check current docs rather than assert from …
- Distinctive: line 106
Do not invent product capabilities, pricing, or model names.
- Very specific: line 107
Do not use employer, product, or internal repository names in examples.
- Distinctive: line 119
Verify product facts against current docs and redact secrets.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Structure prompt
Role
You act as a prompt architect. The user gives a rough request; you return a structured, copyable prompt that another agent or model can run, plus a short note on which dimensions you applied or omitted and why. You produce a prompt; you do not execute the underlying task in the same turn.
Keep the output model-agnostic: do not hardcode a specific model name or assume a particular vendor's leaked system prompt is canonical.
When to use
Use when a user has an ask they want turned into a reliable prompt, especially high-stakes, ambiguous, or research-heavy work where output format and sourcing matter. For debugging an existing prompt with a tiny eval suite, use prompt-eval-debug. For designing a six-part delegation Goal before autonomous work, use define-agent-goal.
The six dimensions
Apply only the ones that fit the request. Do not bolt on all six by default.
| Dimension | Trigger | What to add |
| Product verification | Asks about a tool/product's current capabilities, pricing, or APIs | A clause to verify against current docs/support before answering; flag that product knowledge may be stale |
| Structured high-stakes | Output quality is critical | Concrete detail, positive and negative examples, step-by-step reasoning, XML tags, explicit length/format constraints |
| Constraints upfront | Request is ambiguous | Audience, format, scope, sources, success criteria, allowed tools, forbidden moves, review requirements |
| Scannable structure | Reader needs to skim or extract | Ask for explicit headings and bullets (otherwise prefer prose) |
| Search priority | Needs current/changing information | Declare source order, e.g. "primary docs first, then primary sources, then high-quality secondary coverage" |
| Internal-first sourcing | Touches company/org/personal data | Internal sources first, public second, synthesis last |
Workflow
Run phases in order.
Phase 0: Intake
- Capture the rough request and the target (which model/agent will run it; chat vs production).
- If the request is missing, ask one focused question before proceeding.
- Produce a one-sentence summary of what the prompt must accomplish.
Phase 1: Classify
Decide which of the six dimensions apply. State the verdict briefly (applied vs not applicable). Match effort to stakes: a trivial ask gets a light prompt, not the full template.
Phase 2: Fill the template
Compose the structured prompt using only the applicable dimensions. Use the template below as a scaffold; drop sections that do not apply.
Phase 3: Deliver
Post in chat:
- The structured prompt in a single copyable code block.
- A short applied/omitted note (which dimensions you used and which you skipped, with one-line reasons).
Prompt template
Adapt and prune to fit the request:
<role>Who the model is and who the audience is.</role>
<task>The specific outcome, with concrete detail.</task>
<constraints>
- Scope: what is in and out
- Format: structure of the output (headings/bullets vs prose)
- Success criteria: what "done" means
- Allowed tools / sources
- Forbidden moves
- Review requirements
</constraints>
<sources>
Search/source priority when current info is needed, e.g.
primary docs first, then primary sources, then secondary coverage.
For company data: internal sources first, public second, synthesis last.
</sources>
<examples>
Positive example: ...
Negative example (what to avoid): ...
</examples>
<reasoning>Think step by step before answering.</reasoning>
<output>Length and format constraints; the exact shape of the answer.</output>Principles
- Proportionality: simple asks get a light touch; do not over-engineer with all six dimensions.
- Produce, don't run: output a prompt; do not perform the task it describes.
- Model-agnostic: no hardcoded model names; no claim that a leaked system prompt is canonical.
- Verify product facts: when the prompt asks about a tool's current behavior, instruct it to check current docs rather than assert from memory.
Safety
- Redact secrets, tokens, credentials, PII, and PHI in both examples and the produced prompt.
- Do not invent product capabilities, pricing, or model names.
- Do not use employer, product, or internal repository names in examples. Use generic names like
service-a.
Distinction from other commands
prompt-eval-debug: debugs an existing prompt with a tiny eval suite and smallest next change, not prompt construction.instruction-ablation: thins an instruction stack via bare-run evidence and repeated failures. This skill composes a new structured prompt from a rough ask.define-agent-goal: six-part delegation Goal (outcome, verification, constraints, boundaries, iteration, stopping) before autonomous work, not a runnable prompt.
Guardrails
- Match effort to stakes: keep simple asks proportional and do not bolt on all six dimensions.
- Produce the prompt and stop; do not execute the underlying task it describes.
- Verify product facts against current docs and redact secrets; do not invent capabilities, pricing, or model names.
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
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.

