improving-prompts
Skill49 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when optimizing CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, custom commands, or skill files — diagnose the concrete failure first, then apply current documented Anthropic best practices (explicit instructions, context/motivation, examples, output and verbosity control, thinking/effort, CLAUDE.md size and skill-description rules) instead of inventing improvements. Triggers when a prompt isn't followed, a skill won't activate, CLAUDE.md is too long or ignored, or migrating prompts to current Claude models.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- bostonaholic/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- bostonaholic/grokbot-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- theultimate-dev/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- bostonaholic/skills★ 2same name
- theultimate-dev/skills★ 2same name
- bostonaholic/grokbot-skills★ 1same 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 repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- coding-standardsSkill
- coolify-composeSkill
- crafting-effective-readmesSkill
- diataxisSkill
- english-pleaseSkill
- feature-planning-artifactsSkill
- frontend-design-principlesSkill
- grug-brained-devSkill
- html-artifactsSkill
- improveSkill
- jjSkill
- reducing-entropySkill
- researching-codebasesSkill
- roadmapSkill
- roadmap-to-improve-plansSkill
- rustSkill
- salsaSkill
- skill-authoringSkill
- strategic-roadmapSkill
- svelte5Skill
- sveltekitSkill
- writing-cli-skillsSkill
- writing-error-messagesSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- writingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
12
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 29
Add complexity assuming more structure = better
- Distinctive: line 52
Ask what specific behaviors are underperforming
- Distinctive: line 53
Ask what the prompt should achieve that it currently doesn't
- Distinctive: line 54
If the user says "just improve it generally" — ask for at least one concrete issue
- Distinctive: line 64
Do NOT proceed with generic "improvements" based on assumptions.
- Distinctive: line 78
Thinking & effort: Prefer general instructions ("think thoroughly".
- Distinctive: line 84
Dial back aggressive triggering: Prefer "Use X when it helps" over "CRITICAL: You MUST use X" — current models overtrigger and over-explore …
- Distinctive: line 88
Do NOT restructure sections that aren't problematic
- Distinctive: line 89
Do NOT add complexity unless solving a stated problem
- Distinctive: line 90
Do NOT change tone/voice unless specifically requested
- Distinctive: line 91
Keep the user's examples if they demonstrate the right behavior
- Distinctive: line 100
Do NOT make changes without connecting them to documented guidance.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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.
Files
Improving Prompts
Overview
Apply current documented Anthropic best practices to existing prompts. Do not invent "improvements" — use the actual guidance.
When to Use
- Optimizing CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md files
- Improving custom command prompts
- Refining skill instructions
- Migrating prompts to current Claude models (4.x)
When NOT to Use
- Writing new prompts from scratch (just follow best practices directly)
- The prompt is working well and the user hasn't identified issues
The Core Problem
Without this skill, agents:
- Invent "best practices" from general knowledge
- Make structural changes without asking what's broken
- Add complexity assuming more structure = better
- Change things to demonstrate value rather than solve problems
Stop If You Catch Yourself
These are the failure modes. If you think any of these, stop and get a concrete issue first.
| Thought | Reality |
| "It's too vague / not best-practice / inconsistent" | Not actionable. Which specific behavior fails? |
| "I have enough context" / "I'll assume the user wants…" | If you can't name the specific failure, you don't. Ask. |
| "I'm the expert" / "This is how I'd write it" | Authority doesn't bypass a concrete issue. You're not the user. |
| "Based on general best practices…" | Use documented practices. Cite the guidance. |
| "Structure is always better" | Structure solves structure problems, not all problems. |
| "Time pressure — demo tomorrow" | Pressure is when the worst changes get made. |
| "This is obviously an improvement" | Obvious to you ≠ solving the user's actual problem. |
| Making 10+ changes to a short prompt | Stop. What specific problem are you solving? |
Required Process
Step 1: Understand Before Changing
Before ANY modifications:
- Ask what specific behaviors are underperforming
- Ask what the prompt should achieve that it currently doesn't
- If the user says "just improve it generally" — ask for at least one concrete issue
What counts as a "concrete issue":
- "Claude ignores my instruction to be concise" ✓
- "Claude suggests changes but doesn't implement them" ✓
What does NOT count:
- "It's too vague" ✗ (vague about what?)
- "It doesn't follow best practices" ✗ (which practice? what fails?)
Do NOT proceed with generic "improvements" based on assumptions.
Step 2: Reference Actual Best Practices
See references/anthropic-best-practices.md for the full reference. Key principles:
Be explicit with instructions: Current models follow instructions literally — vague requests get narrow, literal interpretations. If you want "above and beyond," request it explicitly.
State scope explicitly: Current models won't silently generalize an instruction you gave once. "Apply this to every section, not just the first."
Add context/motivation: Explain WHY a rule exists, not just WHAT. Claude generalizes from explanations. "NEVER use ellipses" → "Never use ellipses because the text-to-speech engine cannot pronounce them."
Be vigilant with examples: Examples are imitated precisely, including unintended patterns. Use 3–5, in <example> tags, aligned with the desired behavior.
Thinking & effort: Prefer general instructions ("think thoroughly"; "verify your answer against [criteria] before finishing") over hand-written step-by-step. The old "avoid the word think without extended thinking" rule no longer applies — current models use adaptive thinking + effort.
Control verbosity explicitly: Opus 4.7 scales length to perceived task complexity. If the workflow needs a fixed length or post-tool summaries, say so.
Tool usage: "Can you suggest changes" → suggestions only. "Make these changes" → edits. Be explicit about act vs. advise.
Dial back aggressive triggering: Prefer "Use X when it helps" over "CRITICAL: You MUST use X" — current models overtrigger and over-explore on aggressive language.
Step 3: Preserve What Works
- Do NOT restructure sections that aren't problematic
- Do NOT add complexity unless solving a stated problem
- Do NOT change tone/voice unless specifically requested
- Keep the user's examples if they demonstrate the right behavior
Step 4: Propose Changes with Rationale
For each change, state:
- What specific best practice it applies
- What problem it solves
- Before/after
Do NOT make changes without connecting them to documented guidance.
Quick Reference: Issue → Fix
| Issue | Fix |
| Output too narrow / not generalized | State scope explicitly ("every section", "all cases") |
| Claude doesn't explain reasoning | Ask it to explain its reasoning, or raise effort |
| Claude is too verbose | "Be concise" or "Respond in X sentences" |
| Claude is too terse | "Provide detailed explanations" |
| Claude suggests but doesn't act | Change "Can you…" to imperative "Do X" |
| Instruction isn't followed | Add context for WHY it matters |
| Examples not matching output | Ensure examples show the exact desired format |
| CLAUDE.md too long / ignored | Cut lines that wouldn't cause a mistake if removed (target <200) |
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.

