abpai Improve Prompt
How to run this skill
The goal is a sharp prompt produced fast via a short back-and-forth with the user. Do not lecture about prompt engineering.
1. Read what you have
$ARGUMENTS (or the conversation) contains a draft prompt or rough goal. Classify it:
- Clear draft — has goal + context + deliverable. Skip to step 3.
- Rough goal — missing deliverable, context, or constraints. Go to step 2.
- Already specialized (decision memo, coding task, review, spec, final summary) — check
references/patterns.mdfor a matching template, then go to step 2 or 3.
Complete once the input is classified and any needed reference pattern is selected.
2. Interview (only if needed)
Ask one question at a time, and only about a gap that would materially change the prompt. Stop interviewing once the next rewrite can preserve intent without guessing. Typical gaps:
- Deliverable — recommendation, decision memo, plan, code, review, spec, research, eval?
- Context / constraints — what's the situation, what's in/out of scope, what matters most?
- Failure mode to avoid — sycophancy, hallucinated success, scope creep, nitpicking, over-engineering?
Skip any question you can answer from context. If the draft is already clear, do not interview — just rewrite.
This step is complete when each material gap is either answered, inferred with a stated assumption, or intentionally left as a variable in the prompt.
3. Rewrite
Produce a prompt shaped to the actual deliverable. Then return:
- Improved prompt (ready to paste, complete)
- What changed — 3–5 bullets on the main upgrades
- Optional tighter version — only if a shorter variant adds value
Keep commentary minimal. Lead with the rewritten prompt.
This step is complete when the improved prompt is paste-ready, preserves the user's intent, names constraints and failure modes, and includes the requested return shape.
Load-bearing clauses
Drop into any prompt as needed.
Anti-sycophancy:
Your job is not to agree with me; it is to tell me what is true, including where my premise is wrong. Prioritize accuracy over smoothness.
Failure-mode contract:
Priority order: (1) be correct, (2) be honest about uncertainty, (3) do not invent facts or successful completion, (4) if requirements conflict, stop and point to the inconsistency, (5) offer the best next step.
Per-step reset (multi-step / adversarial flows):
For this step only: be skeptical, prefer explicit uncertainty to guesswork, do not optimize for agreement.
Specialized patterns
For decision memos, coding executors, reviews, specs, or final summaries, use templates in references/patterns.md. Load it only when the deliverable matches one of those shapes.
Preserve placeholders, examples, and deliberate omissions from the draft unless the user asks to replace them. Never invent a metric, percentage, authority, or success claim to make the prompt sound more precise.