prompt-review
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Audits a candidate prompt (.prompt.md) against five gates (spec compliance, content quality, scope fit, safety, currency & coherence). Use when reviewing a new prompt draft before commit, evaluating a Mall prompt or store prompt for adoption, or re-auditing existing prompts on a periodic cadence.
7 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sysetup/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- nivoset/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- tokoroten/prompt-reviewtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- spacedriveapp/spacebottheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- gmanch94/claude-code-aidlc-templatetheir own version, first seen Jul 11, 2026
- Jinbae10/skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 7, 2026
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 7
- spacedriveapp/spacebot★ 2.4ksame name
- tokoroten/prompt-review★ 358same name
- Wondermonger-daydreaming/claude-skills-library★ 7same name
- nivoset/skills★ 4same name
- gmanch94/claude-code-aidlc-template★ 2same name
- sysetup/skills★ 1same name
- Jinbae10/skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- agent-creatorSkill
- agent-reviewSkill
- ai-memory-setupSkill
- alex-banner-generationSkill
- anti-hallucinationSkill
- brain-auditSkill
- browser-toolsSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- creative-writingSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- deep-reviewSkill
- doc-hygieneSkill
- docx-to-mdSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- greeting-checkinSkill
- html-to-mdSkill
- humanizerSkill
- instruction-creatorSkill
- instruction-reviewSkill
- lint-clean-markdownSkill
- markdown-mermaidSkill
- markdown-sanitization-chainSkill
- md-to-emlSkill
- md-to-htmlSkill
- md-to-txtSkill
- md-to-wordSkill
- meditationSkill
- planSkill
- problem-framing-auditSkill
- prompt-creatorSkill
- security-and-hardeningSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- skill-reviewSkill
- spikeSkill
- status-reportingSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
The file
Files
<!-- intentional divergence from Supervisor: Edition expands gate names inline and strips Supervisor-only ADR-007 ref. Same five gates. Audited 2026-05-31. -->Prompt Review
Audit a candidate prompt against the five-gate contract. Prompts are workflow entry points — short, imperative, single-goal. No optional Gate 6 (prompts are short by nature; no scaling concern Gates 1–5 miss).
When to Use
Three fire contexts:
- Author self-audit — dogfood your own draft before committing. Invoked from prompt-creator Phase 7.
- External candidate adoption — gate before pulling a Mall prompt or store prompt into this brain.
- Periodic re-audit — re-check existing prompts on a cadence (e.g., quarterly retraining).
The shared gate model lives in skill-review/SKILL.md § The Five Gates. This file documents the prompt-specific criteria for each gate.
A mechanical validator (e.g., a brain-qa script that ships with the heir) typically checks Gate 1 frontmatter compliance and the mechanical subset of Gate 5. Gates 2–5 are judgment-only.
The Five Gates
A candidate must pass all five to ship. Failure on any gate = decline or revise.
Gate 1 — Spec Compliance
| Check | Pass criterion |
| Frontmatter present AND minimal | description + lastReviewed. Reject any of: name, type, application, tier, currency, inheritance, lifecycle, user-invokable, evidence. |
mode: field handling | Per current Microsoft Learn prompt-files spec, mode: agent is deprecated. Existing prompts may carry it during sweep transition; new prompts should not introduce it. Flag as Gate 1 fail if a new prompt adds mode:. |
description valid | Third-person, ≤1024 chars, names what the prompt does AND when to invoke it (slash-command UX). |
| Filename pattern | <kebab-name>.prompt.md in .github/prompts/ (flat — no subfolders) |
| Markdown lints clean | No broken links, no missing code-fence languages |
Gate 2 — Content Quality
| Check | Pass criterion |
| Imperative voice | Verbs in the imperative ("Run X", "Read Y", "Apply Z"). Prompts are commands to the agent, not explanations. |
| Single workflow scope | One goal per prompt. If the title contains "and" or "+", split. Prompts that are menus of unrelated commands fail this gate. |
| Numbered steps | The prompt's body is a numbered step list. Brief context paragraph allowed before the steps; nothing else. |
Has ## Would Revise If OR justification for omission | Prompts under 30 lines may inline the falsifier; longer prompts must have an explicit section per your heir's falsifiability-deadlines discipline. |
| ≤100 lines | Soft target. Long prompts signal that the workflow belongs in a skill; the prompt should just invoke the skill. |
Gate 3 — Scope Fit
| Check | Pass criterion |
| Workflow entry-point, not workflow body | The prompt invokes a skill (or runs a short coordinated sequence). The skill carries the procedure; the prompt is the front door. |
| Not redundant with existing prompt | Grep description: across .github/prompts/ — if another prompt covers the same workflow, extend that one. |
| Discoverable as slash-command | The prompt's name (filename without .prompt.md) is something a user would intuitively type after /. /review-instruction good; /v2-thing-do bad. |
| Lives in the right brain | Generic developer workflows → heir baseline. Project-specific workflows → that project's local repo. |
Gate 4 — Safety
Same criteria as skill-review § Gate 4. Prompt-specific note: prompts that invoke destructive operations (force-push, drop, delete) must include an explicit user-confirmation step before the destructive call.
Gate 5 — Currency & Coherence
Same criteria as skill-review § Gate 5. Prompt-specific note: the prompt must reference live skills/instructions in its steps. A prompt that calls a retired skill is a Gate 5 failure even if the prompt itself is well-written.
Decision Matrix
| Gates passed | Action |
| All 5 | Accept — land the change |
| 4 of 5 | Revise — name the failing gate and patch the candidate |
| ≤3 of 5 | Decline — name the rationale; if the decline sets precedent, record it where your heir tracks framework-level decisions |
Recording the Verdict
For self-audits and routine re-audits: the verdict lives in the commit message or the conversation. No separate file.
For external adoption (Mall prompt, store prompt) or any decline that sets precedent: write a verdict capturing gate results, rationale, required changes (if Revise), and the act-pass trail. Store wherever your heir keeps audit decisions.
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-pattern | Correction |
| Accepting a prompt that carries the workflow inline instead of invoking a skill | If the prompt has more than the step list, the workflow belongs in a skill |
Letting mode: agent ship on a new prompt | Per Microsoft Learn current spec, deprecated. Flag at Gate 1. |
| Accepting "menu" prompts that bundle unrelated commands | One workflow per prompt. Multi-purpose prompts confuse the slash-picker. |
| Skipping the slash-picker discoverability check | Filename = user typing. If the name is cryptic, the prompt won't get found. |
| Prompt references a retired skill | Gate 5 semantic failure. Check the Steps: block resolves to live artifacts. |
Falsifiability
This skill's prompt-specific criteria have failed if any of the following occur within 90 days:
- An accepted prompt is reported broken (workflow doesn't fire, or fires wrong) by 2+ heirs
- Gate 2 ≤100 lines threshold is reversed ≥3 times for legitimate complex workflows (ceiling too tight)
- Prompts accepted via this skill are typed via slash-picker <50% of the time when applicable (discoverability criterion miscalibrated)
Track as you would any falsified discipline (commit log, retraining notes, or curation ledger if your repo ships one) tagged [PROMPT-REVIEW-MISS].
Related
- skill-review — sibling for skills; canonical source of the shared five-gate contract
- prompt-creator — inverts these gates into authoring phases
- instruction-review — sibling for instructions
- agent-review — sibling for agents
- act-pass — required for medium-stakes audits
/review-promptprompt — slash-command entry point
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.