agentleFS
patonkikhpatonkikh/APES/skills/ai/prompt-reviewer/skill.md

prompt-reviewer

Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Review prompts against quality, safety, and reliability criteria; produce findings with severity and fix recommendations. Use when working on prompt engineering, AI workflows, agents, context design, or LLM optimization.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Test mentally with adversarial inputs.

    line 107
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify output format is parseable.

    line 109

≈ “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.

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

Prompt Reviewer

Purpose

Review prompts against quality, safety, and reliability criteria; produce findings with severity and fix recommendations.

Input: Prompt specification or raw prompt text, use case context, risk level
Output: Prompt Review Report with scored dimensions, findings, and revised sections Examples: See examples.md for worked input/output.


Workflow

Step 1: Establish review context

Confirm:

  • Prompt purpose and use case
  • Risk level (internal / customer-facing / regulated)
  • Model target (if known)
  • Expected output format

Step 2: Score review dimensions

DimensionScore (1-5)Notes
ClarityInstructions unambiguous
CompletenessAll needed context and rules
Output contractFormat enforceable
SafetyInjection resistance, refusal behavior
EfficiencyToken usage reasonable
TestabilityCan verify output programmatically
MaintainabilityVariables, versioning, modularity

Step 3: Run safety checklist

  • Input delimiter boundaries defined
  • Instruction/data separation clear
  • Out-of-scope refusal behavior
  • No secrets or credentials in template
  • PII handling rules if applicable
  • Jailbreak resistance for customer-facing

Step 4: Document findings

IDSeverityCategoryFindingFix

Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low

Step 5: Provide revised sections

For Critical/High findings, rewrite affected prompt sections.

Step 6: Validate

Run Validation checklist.


Decision Rules

ConditionAction
Customer-facing with no refusal rulesCritical finding; block deploy
Instructions contradict examplesHigh finding; fix examples or instructions
Ambiguous output formatHigh finding; specify exact format
Role Play detectedMedium finding; rewrite to task-based instructions
No test cases providedRecommend prompt-engineer test cases

Validation

  • All 7 dimensions scored with notes
  • Safety checklist completed
  • ≥3 findings documented (or explicit "no issues" with evidence)
  • Critical/High findings have fix recommendations
  • Revised sections provided for Critical/High
  • Overall deploy recommendation: Approve / Approve with fixes / Block
  • No Role Play introduced in revisions

Anti-patterns

  • Rubber stamp approval — all 5s without analysis.
  • Style-only feedback — word choice vs structural issues.
  • Missing safety on external prompts — ignoring injection risks.
  • Vague fixes — "make it clearer" without rewrite.
  • Ignoring examples — examples that teach wrong behavior.

Best Practices

  • Test mentally with adversarial inputs.
  • Check instruction-example consistency.
  • Verify output format is parseable.
  • Align safety level with use case risk.
  • Reference OWASP LLM Top 1 (prompt injection) for external prompts.

Output Structure

# Prompt Review: [Prompt Name]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Risk level:** [level]
**Recommendation:** Approve | Approve with fixes | Block

## Dimension Scores
| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|

## Safety Checklist
- [x] or [ ] [item]

## Findings
| ID | Severity | Finding | Fix |
|----|----------|---------|-----|

## Revised Sections
### [Section name]
[Rewritten content]

## Required Actions Before Deploy
1. [Action]

Next Skills

OutcomeRecommended Skill
Optimize approved promptai/prompt-optimizer
Major rewrite neededai/prompt-engineer
Context budget issuesai/context-engineering
AI security reviewsecurity/prompt-injection-detector

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.