agentleFS
varunk130varunk130/claude-code-skills/skills/ai-ux-design/prompt-surface-designer/SKILL.md

prompt-surface-designer

Skill1 starsChanged 21 days agoMITView on GitHub

Designs the input experience for chat and agent surfaces - empty states, starter prompts, capability discovery, input affordances, follow-up suggestions, and first-run onboarding - with a capability inventory, starter-prompt scoring, and a blank-box risk assessment. Use when designing a new chat or agent interface; users stare at an empty prompt box and leave; writing starter prompts or suggested follow-ups; or improving discovery of what an assistant can do.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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:

    Follow-up suggestions that are generic ("Tell me more") rather than the next useful step

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Follow-ups should advance the job, not prolong the chat.

    line 102
  3. Distinctive:

    Follow-up suggestion rules and examples

    line 129
  4. Distinctive:

    Use "Ask me anything" as the only guidance

    line 142
  5. Distinctive:

    Run an interface tour in place of a first real success

    line 145

≈ “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 Surface Designer

A blank text box is the hardest interface ever shipped. Design what surrounds it.

What this skill is

A workflow for designing everything around the prompt input of a chat, copilot, or agent surface. It starts from an inventory of what the system can actually do well, then designs the empty state, starter prompts, input affordances, follow-up suggestions, and first-run experience so users discover high-value capabilities and form accurate expectations. It treats the prompt box as a product surface, not a text field.

What it solves

  • Users who do not know what to ask, try one generic question, and leave
  • Starter prompts that showcase demo tricks instead of the jobs users actually have
  • Capabilities users never discover because they live only in documentation
  • Inputs that force users to type context the system already has or could gather
  • Follow-up suggestions that are generic ("Tell me more") rather than the next useful step
  • First-run onboarding that tours the interface instead of getting the user to a first success

When to invoke

  • Designing a new chat, copilot, or agent entry point
  • Analytics show high empty-state abandonment or short first sessions
  • Writing or refreshing starter prompts and suggested follow-ups
  • Launching new capabilities that users need to discover
  • Adding attachments, context pickers, or structured inputs to a chat surface

Phase 1: Build the capability inventory

List what the system can do, scored on reliability and user value. Discovery should promote only what works.

CapabilityExample requestMeasured success rateUser value (1-5)Frequency of need (1-5)
Summarize a thread"Summarize this customer thread"94 percent45
Promotion score = Success rate x User value x Frequency
Promote only capabilities with success rate at or above 85 percent

Also record known limits: what users are likely to ask that the system cannot do well. These become expectation-setting copy.

Phase 2: Assess blank-box risk

Score the surface to decide how much scaffolding it needs:

FactorLow risk (1)High risk (3)
User familiarity with AI toolsDaily usersFirst-time users
Breadth of capabilityNarrow, obvious purposeBroad, general-purpose
Context awarenessKnows the user's current object or pageNo context
Cost of a bad first resultTrivialDamages adoption
Blank-box risk = sum of factors (4-12)
4-6: light scaffolding (placeholder text, 2-3 starters)
7-9: moderate (contextual starters, capability hints, examples)
10-12: heavy (guided first task, structured entry, templates)

Phase 3: Design the empty state and starter prompts

Empty state components, in order of importance:

  1. Context line - what the assistant can see right now ("Working with: Q3 pipeline report")
  2. Starter prompts - 3-4 tappable requests
  3. Capability hint - one line on scope and one known limit
  4. Placeholder text - a concrete example, not "Ask me anything"

Score each candidate starter prompt (0-2 each, keep those scoring 8 or more of 10):

Criterion2 points if
Real jobMaps to a frequent task from research or logs
ReliableUses a capability above the success threshold
ContextualReferences the user's current object, role, or data
TeachesReveals a capability the user would not guess
SpecificConcrete enough that the output is predictable

Rotate starters by context (page, role, recent activity), not at random. Include at least one starter that shows a non-obvious capability.

Phase 4: Design input affordances

Reduce what users must type and remember:

AffordanceUse when
Context chips (current file, selection, page)The system can attach context automatically
Attachment and mention ("@" for people, files, records)Users need to point at specific objects
Slash commands or action menuRepeated structured tasks exist
Mode or scope selectorDistinct behaviors (search vs. draft vs. act) need different expectations
Structured fieldsRequired parameters (date range, recipient) are often omitted
Prompt editing and resendUsers iterate on the same request
Voice or paste-friendly inputLong-form or mobile input

Show what context is attached before sending, and let users remove it.

Phase 5: Design follow-up suggestions

Follow-ups should advance the job, not prolong the chat. Generate them from:

  • Next step in the workflow - "Draft the reply to this customer"
  • Refinement of this output - "Make it shorter", "Use the 2025 pricing"
  • Adjacent capability - "Create a task from these action items"

Rules: 2-3 suggestions maximum, specific to the output just produced, and never a suggestion the system would likely fail at.

Phase 6: Design first-run onboarding

Aim for a first successful outcome within 60 seconds:

StepPurpose
Set expectationsOne sentence on what it does well and one thing it does not
Guided first taskPre-filled, high-reliability request using the user's own data
Show controlPoint out edit, retry, and undo on the first result
Seed the next sessionOne suggestion for something to try next time

Measure: time to first successful output, second-session return rate, and percent of users who use 3 or more distinct capabilities in the first week.

Output

  • Capability inventory with promotion scores and known limits
  • Blank-box risk score and scaffolding level
  • Empty state spec with context line, starter prompts, and placeholder copy
  • Starter prompt scoring table and rotation rules
  • Input affordance spec
  • Follow-up suggestion rules and examples
  • First-run onboarding flow with success metrics

Operating rules

Always

  • Promote only capabilities that clear a measured reliability threshold
  • Make starter prompts contextual to the user's current work
  • Show what context the system has before the user sends
  • State one known limit alongside capabilities
  • Measure time to first successful output

Never

  • Use "Ask me anything" as the only guidance
  • Showcase demo-friendly prompts that do not match real jobs
  • Offer follow-ups the system is likely to fail
  • Run an interface tour in place of a first real success
  • Hide attached context the model will use

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.