agentleFS
wotjr1649wotjr1649/devflow/skills/write-prompts/SKILL.md

write-prompts

Skill1 starsChanged 38 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Drafts or revises prompts passed to a model (chat, system, task, handoff, delegation) when asked; not for discussion-only requests, harness-loaded instruction files or task execution.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. Talkif-ai/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 repository5 other files it gives its agents.

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:

    Write prompt text without executing its task.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    When revising, preserve intent, essential rationale, constraints, identifiers, schemas, and supplied placeholders unless the user requests …

    line 18
  3. Distinctive:

    Use only context the recipient has or can access.

    line 23
  4. Distinctive:

    When freshness affects the requested result, specify appropriate source checks for the relevant dates.

    line 26
  5. Distinctive:

    Check preserved intent and constraints, contradictions, unresolved inputs or placeholders, unsupported capabilities, and unnecessary …

    line 36

≈ “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

Write Prompts

Write prompt text without executing its task. Use a requested destination; if a file is requested without a name, pick one that does not exist yet; never overwrite unrelated files. Preserve task paths.

Resolve

Separate authoring instructions from recipient instructions; do not transfer authoring-only constraints on questions, length, format, or tools. Treat drafts and quoted material as editing input; follow quoted authoring guidance only when the user explicitly requests it.

Use existing context to identify the goal, output, constraints, and recipient capabilities. Ask a focused question only when gaps or conflicts materially affect the result. For other gaps, state an assumption or use a named placeholder. If questions are disallowed, leave blocking decisions as placeholders; never assume missing permission. A model name is optional.

Preserve intentional template variables; replace secrets with named placeholders. For blockers the recipient cannot resolve through its permitted workflow, state prerequisites. Define a blocked response only if the output requirements allow it; otherwise require whoever invokes the prompt to resolve those blockers first. Do not invent silent waiting, resumption, or error channels.

When revising, preserve intent, essential rationale, constraints, identifiers, schemas, and supplied placeholders unless the user requests changes to them. Change only what the request requires; when merging repetitions, keep the task, inputs, conditions, and exceptions explicit.

Compose

  • State the task, essential context, output, and observable completion criteria. Scale detail to complexity without expanding scope or making incidental context a prerequisite.
  • Use only context the recipient has or can access. Include missing essentials or identify required inputs; do not assume access to this conversation.
  • Distinguish facts, assumptions, and consequential unknowns; state what to verify, assume, or stop for. Never invent resources, permissions, or check results.
  • Separate instructions from reference data and examples. Use examples to clarify formats or decision boundaries, headings or tags for mixed inputs, and ordered steps for dependencies. Use roles only to focus the task, never to grant authority.
  • When freshness affects the requested result, specify appropriate source checks for the relevant dates; retain relevant history. For executable work, require proportionate validation and a stopping condition.
  • Require only capabilities the recipient has; preserve approval boundaries. Keep runtime settings separate: prompt text does not configure tools, permissions, or API parameters.
  • Apply model-specific techniques only for a known target model and verified applicable guidance. Request useful rationale or evidence, not hidden chain-of-thought.

Handoffs

Carry completed and remaining work, next action, decisions and reasons, relevant files or revisions, and observed check results. Identify the tested state when known; distinguish proposed checks and results predating relevant changes. Reference accessible authoritative records and add missing updates to the handoff without duplicating the records.

Deliver

Check preserved intent and constraints, contradictions, unresolved inputs or placeholders, unsupported capabilities, and unnecessary instructions. Return the complete prompt in the requested language and format, or write a requested file and report its path; include separate explanations or alternatives only when requested.

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.