prompt-optimization
Skill20 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Improves LLM-facing context while preserving intent, execution boundaries, and proportional work. Use when creating or reviewing prompts, agent definitions, skill definitions, or other instructions for an LLM.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- thistleknot/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- stagewise-io/stagewisetheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- stagewise-io/stagewise★ 6.8ksame name
- thistleknot/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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- knowledge-baseSkill
- recipe-eval-promptSkill
- recipe-eval-skillSkill
- worktree-executionSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Very specific: line 37
Keep output_mode outside the target prompt and analysis.original_prompt.
- Distinctive: line 69
all required analysis references are covered.
- Distinctive: line 71
every distinct issue has one finding with evidence, location, pattern, and severity.
- Distinctive: line 73
no unresolved input prevents a faithful optimization.
- Very specific: line 77
Start this step when analysis_gate.status is pass.
- Distinctive: line 86
every finding has exactly one resolution.
- Distinctive: line 87
every change traces to a finding or named project source.
- Distinctive: line 88
all preservation requirements remain represented.
- Distinctive: line 91
every applied BP-002 clarification identifies an observable precision contribution and preserves the valid solutions allowed by the …
- Distinctive: line 191
Add structure when the prompt contains multiple instructions, sequential dependencies, or implicit section boundaries.
- Distinctive: line 199
Keep gates for true dependencies, authority, irreversible actions, machine-consumed contracts, and completion proof.
- Distinctive: line 207
Treat discovered findings and technically valid possibilities as candidates.
- Distinctive: line 211
When the target requires a code or repository change:
- Distinctive: line 213
Treat source, tests, configuration, interfaces, and callers as project artifacts that can supply required decisions.
≈ “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
Prompt Optimization Skill
Purpose
Improve prompts while preserving user intent.
Core Principles
- Procedural Gates: Complete analysis, optimization, and balance in order. Each phase has observable pass conditions that control the next transition.
- Intent Preservation: Record the original requirements before changing wording, structure, context, constraints, or examples.
- Necessary and Sufficient Context: Include the information needed for a decision, action, or verification result. Condense or omit information that does not affect one of them.
- Minimal Sufficient Work: Classify discovered possibilities as candidates. Add work only when it changes the outcome, protects a required boundary, serves a real consumer, or supplies necessary proof.
- Traceable Changes: Connect every change to a finding or project-specific source.
- Self-Contained Execution: Require no temporary artifacts or additional agents.
Required References
Load references at the phase where their rules become necessary:
| Phase | Condition | Required reference |
| Analysis | Every prompt | references/patterns.yaml |
| Analysis | Target is a SKILL.md, agent, or skill reference | references/skills.md |
| Balance | Every prompt | references/execution-quality.yaml |
Record the loaded path and covered rule IDs in the phase's reference_coverage. A phase passes only when its required references and rule coverage are present.
Output Mode
Select the output mode before analysis. An explicit output_mode of interactive or machine takes priority; for any other value, ask the caller to choose one. When it is absent, use Machine mode only if the caller explicitly requests the Machine Output Contract as the response format; otherwise use Interactive mode. Apply the same rule to human and LLM callers.
Keep output_mode outside the target prompt and analysis.original_prompt.
Pattern Detection
Evaluate every pattern and record issue, already_satisfied, or not_applicable.
| Priority | ID | Pattern | Decision goal |
| P1 | BP-001 | Negative Instructions | Lead with the required behavior; retain explicit prohibitions for narrow irreversible boundaries |
| P1 | BP-002 | Vague Instructions | Resolve an outcome-relevant ambiguity with the least-restrictive sufficient criterion |
| P1 | BP-003 | Missing Output Format | Define the shape needed by the output consumer |
| P1 | BP-009 | Unbounded Work Generation | Prevent technically valid possibilities from becoming unnecessary work |
| P2 | BP-004 | Unstructured Prompt | Make priority and relationships visible when structure reduces ambiguity |
| P2 | BP-005 | Missing or Excess Context | Supply decision-sufficient context without distractors or duplication |
| P2 | BP-006 | Missing or Excess Procedural Control | Keep required gates without prescribing reversible routes |
| P3 | BP-007 | Unnecessary or Biased Examples | Use examples only for non-obvious mappings, then control their bias |
| P3 | BP-008 | Missing Uncertainty Handling | Define evidence, escalation, and stopping behavior for unresolved inputs |
Gated 3-Step Flow
Maintain one complete phase-state object in the current invocation. Complete each phase and its gate before generating the next phase; use the transition table as the control rule. Serialize the object only in Machine mode.
Step 1: Analysis
- Load the analysis references required for the target type.
- Preserve the original prompt verbatim.
- Record the prompt's intended outcome and requirements that later phases must preserve.
- Evaluate BP-001 through BP-009. Record every distinct issue in
findingswith a uniquefinding_id, pattern, severity, location, and quoted evidence. A BP-002 finding represents one decision required by the intended outcome whose plausible interpretations would materially change correctness, requested scope, downstream usability, or verification. - Record missing inputs under
unresolved_inputs.
analysis_gate passes when:
- all required analysis references are covered;
- BP-001 through BP-009 each have one summary whose
finding_idsmatch its findings; - every distinct issue has one finding with evidence, location, pattern, and severity;
- preservation requirements are explicit; and
- no unresolved input prevents a faithful optimization.
Step 2: Optimization
Start this step when analysis_gate.status is pass.
- Resolve every finding as
appliedorskippedwith a reason. For BP-002, choose the least-restrictive clarification that supplies the required precision and base the reason on its precision contribution and constraint cost. - Apply Structural and Context Addition changes that improve task execution.
- Consolidate redundant changes and preserve requirements recorded in Step 1.
- Produce the candidate optimized prompt.
optimization_gate passes when:
- every finding has exactly one resolution;
- every change traces to a finding or named project source;
- all preservation requirements remain represented;
- added constraints remove a real ambiguity or protect a real requirement;
- added obligations affect the outcome, a required boundary, a real consumer, or necessary proof; and
- every applied BP-002 clarification identifies an observable precision contribution and preserves the valid solutions allowed by the original intent.
Step 3: Balance
Start this step when optimization_gate.status is pass.
- Load
references/execution-quality.yaml. - Evaluate intent preservation, decision sufficiency, information density, constraint necessity, work proportionality, and traceability.
- Apply balance adjustments and record each adjustment.
- Produce the final prompt and final status.
balance_gate passes when every applicable balance check has evidence and no blocking check remains. Use original_sufficient when the analysis found no beneficial change.
State Transitions
| Gate result | Required transition |
pass | Populate the next phase and its gate |
blocked | Keep later workflow phases and their gates null, set result.status to blocked, and format the result in the selected output mode |
Final balance pass with changes | Set result.status to optimized |
Final balance pass without changes | Set result.status to original_sufficient |
Interactive Output Contract
Format the user-facing result by status:
- For
optimized, return## Final Promptwith the optimized prompt, followed by## Changeswith one bullet per applied change and its reason. - For
original_sufficient, return## Final Promptwith the original prompt, followed by## Changesstating that no beneficial change was found and the original is already sufficient. - For
blocked, return only## Required Inputwith one bullet per missing item needed to continue.
Machine Output Contract
In Machine mode, return exactly one valid JSON object in this key order. Populate phases sequentially; later phases remain null until their preceding gate passes.
{
"analysis": {
"original_prompt": "verbatim input",
"target_type": "general_prompt | skill_content",
"intended_outcome": "observable outcome",
"reference_coverage": [{"path": "references/patterns.yaml", "rule_ids": ["BP-001", "BP-002", "BP-003", "BP-004", "BP-005", "BP-006", "BP-007", "BP-008", "BP-009"]}],
"pattern_coverage": {
"BP-001": {"status": "issue | already_satisfied | not_applicable", "finding_ids": ["F-001"], "evidence": ["summary evidence or applicability reason"]},
"BP-002": {"status": "issue | already_satisfied | not_applicable", "finding_ids": ["F-002", "F-003"], "evidence": ["summary evidence or applicability reason"]},
"BP-003": {"status": "issue | already_satisfied | not_applicable", "finding_ids": [], "evidence": ["summary evidence or applicability reason"]},
"BP-004": {"status": "issue | already_satisfied | not_applicable", "finding_ids": [], "evidence": ["summary evidence or applicability reason"]},
"BP-005": {"status": "issue | already_satisfied | not_applicable", "finding_ids": [], "evidence": ["summary evidence or applicability reason"]},
"BP-006": {"status": "issue | already_satisfied | not_applicable", "finding_ids": [], "evidence": ["summary evidence or applicability reason"]},
"BP-007": {"status": "issue | already_satisfied | not_applicable", "finding_ids": [], "evidence": ["summary evidence or applicability reason"]},
"BP-008": {"status": "issue | already_satisfied | not_applicable", "finding_ids": [], "evidence": ["summary evidence or applicability reason"]},
"BP-009": {"status": "issue | already_satisfied | not_applicable", "finding_ids": [], "evidence": ["summary evidence or applicability reason"]}
},
"findings": [{"finding_id": "F-001", "pattern_id": "BP-001", "severity": "P1", "location": "section or line", "evidence": ["verbatim issue evidence"]}, {"finding_id": "F-002", "pattern_id": "BP-002", "severity": "P1", "location": "first vague instruction", "evidence": ["verbatim evidence"]}, {"finding_id": "F-003", "pattern_id": "BP-002", "severity": "P1", "location": "second vague instruction", "evidence": ["verbatim evidence"]}],
"preservation_requirements": ["requirement"],
"unresolved_inputs": []
},
"analysis_gate": {"status": "pass | blocked", "missing": []},
"optimization": {"finding_resolutions": [{"finding_id": "F-001", "decision": "applied | skipped", "reason": "reason", "change": "change or null", "source": "finding | project path"}], "candidate_prompt": "optimized candidate"},
"optimization_gate": {"status": "pass | blocked", "missing": []},
"balance": {
"reference_coverage": [{"path": "references/execution-quality.yaml", "rule_ids": ["intent_preservation", "decision_sufficiency", "information_density", "constraint_necessity", "work_proportionality", "traceability"]}],
"checks": [
{"check_id": "intent_preservation", "status": "pass | blocked", "evidence": "comparison evidence"},
{"check_id": "decision_sufficiency", "status": "pass | blocked", "evidence": "execution evidence"},
{"check_id": "information_density", "status": "pass | blocked", "evidence": "context evidence"},
{"check_id": "constraint_necessity", "status": "pass | blocked", "evidence": "constraint trace"},
{"check_id": "work_proportionality", "status": "pass | blocked", "evidence": "obligation effect"},
{"check_id": "traceability", "status": "pass | blocked", "evidence": "finding or source mapping"}
],
"adjustments": []
},
"balance_gate": {"status": "pass | blocked", "missing": []},
"result": {"status": "optimized | original_sufficient | blocked", "final_prompt": "prompt or null"}
}Field types are fixed: analysis and analysis_gate are objects; optimization fields become objects only after analysis passes; balance fields become objects only after optimization passes. Otherwise later phases are null. result.final_prompt is a string for optimized or original_sufficient, and null for blocked.
Example of an analysis-blocked transition:
{
"analysis": {"original_prompt": "verbatim input", "target_type": "skill_content", "intended_outcome": "observable outcome", "reference_coverage": [], "pattern_coverage": {}, "findings": [], "preservation_requirements": [], "unresolved_inputs": ["required skill reference unavailable"]},
"analysis_gate": {"status": "blocked", "missing": ["references/skills.md"]},
"optimization": null,
"optimization_gate": null,
"balance": null,
"balance_gate": null,
"result": {"status": "blocked", "final_prompt": null}
}Conditional Rules
BP-001: Negative Instructions
State the desired action or allowed state first. Preserve an explicit prohibition when the violation is an irreversible operational action, the caller cannot normally recover it, and a positive-only rewrite would blur the boundary. Pair the prohibition with the safe alternative and the condition that authorizes crossing the boundary.
BP-004: Structure
Add structure when the prompt contains multiple instructions, sequential dependencies, or implicit section boundaries. Preserve lightweight prose for a single clear action.
BP-005: Context
For each context item, identify the decision, action, or verification it controls and check that it is available where used and associated with the relevant subject. Add missing items that change one of those outcomes. Condense duplicated items and items with no downstream effect.
BP-006: Procedural Control
Keep gates for true dependencies, authority, irreversible actions, machine-consumed contracts, and completion proof. For reversible choices, state the purpose, relevant evidence, and selection criteria without prescribing the route.
BP-007: Examples
Default to concise rules or consumer-required output shapes for generally known behavior. Add an example when it conveys a domain-, product-, or organization-specific mapping, a non-obvious exception, or a boundary that a rule cannot express. Connect every example to the ambiguity it removes and keep the smallest set that covers those ambiguities.
BP-009: Work Generation
Treat discovered findings and technically valid possibilities as candidates. Keep only work required by the outcome, a boundary, a real consumer, or necessary proof; allow evidence-backed no-change, reuse, and decline; stop when the intended outcome is observable.
Code and Repository Tasks
When the target requires a code or repository change:
- Treat source, tests, configuration, interfaces, and callers as project artifacts that can supply required decisions.
- Derive compatibility and verification criteria from the repository's existing contracts and workflows.
- Require evidence from the relevant established checks before claiming completion.
Improvement Classification
| Classification | Definition | Interpretation |
| Structural | Changes to organization, criteria, gates, or output shape | Prompt writing technique |
| Context Addition | Project-specific information added from a traceable source | Information advantage |
| Expressive | Different phrasing with equivalent executable meaning | Neutral |
| Variance | Difference without an attributable requirement or execution effect | Original prompt sufficient |
References
references/patterns.yaml- Detailed BP-001 through BP-009 decision rulesreferences/execution-quality.yaml- Balance checks and comparison criteriareferences/skills.md- Skill-specific BP adaptations and progressive disclosure
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.

