Purpose
This skill transforms raw, unstructured user prompts into highly optimized prompts using established prompting frameworks. It analyzes user intent, identifies task complexity, and intelligently selects the most appropriate framework(s) to maximize Claude/ChatGPT output quality.
The skill operates in "magic mode" - it works silently behind the scenes, only interacting with users when clarification is critically needed. Users receive polished, ready-to-use prompts without technical explanations or framework jargon.
This is a universal skill that works in any terminal context, not limited to Obsidian vaults or specific project structures.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when:
- User provides a vague or generic prompt (e.g., "help me code Python")
- User has a complex idea but struggles to articulate it clearly
- User's prompt lacks structure, context, or specific requirements
- Task requires step-by-step reasoning (debugging, analysis, design)
- User needs a prompt for a specific AI task but doesn't know prompting frameworks
- User wants to improve an existing prompt's effectiveness
- User asks variations of "how do I ask AI to..." or "create a prompt for..."
Workflow
Step 1: Analyze Intent
Objective: Understand what the user truly wants to accomplish.
Actions:
- Read the raw prompt provided by the user
- Detect task characteristics:
- Type: coding, writing, analysis, design, learning, planning, decision-making, creative, etc.
- Complexity: simple (one-step), moderate (multi-step), complex (requires reasoning/design)
- Clarity: clear intention vs. ambiguous/vague
- Domain: technical, business, creative, academic, personal, etc.
- Identify implicit requirements:
- Does user need examples?
- Is output format specified?
- Are there constraints (time, resources, scope)?
- Is this exploratory or execution-focused?
Detection Patterns:
- Simple tasks: Short prompts (<50 chars), single verb, no context
- Complex tasks: Long prompts (>200 chars), multiple requirements, conditional logic
- Ambiguous tasks: Generic verbs ("help", "improve"), missing object/context
- Structured tasks: Mentions steps, phases, deliverables, stakeholders
Step 3: Select Framework(s)
Objective: Map task characteristics to optimal prompting framework(s).
Framework Mapping Logic:
| Task Type |
Recommended Framework(s) |
Rationale |
| Role-based tasks (act as expert, consultant) |
RTF (Role-Task-Format) |
Clear role definition + task + output format |
| Step-by-step reasoning (debugging, proof, logic) |
Chain of Thought |
Encourages explicit reasoning steps |
| Structured projects (multi-phase, deliverables) |
RISEN (Role, Instructions, Steps, End goal, Narrowing) |
Comprehensive structure for complex work |
| Complex design/analysis (systems, architecture) |
RODES (Role, Objective, Details, Examples, Sense check) |
Balances detail with validation |
| Summarization (compress, synthesize) |
Chain of Density |
Iterative refinement to essential info |
| Communication (reports, presentations, storytelling) |
RACE (Role, Audience, Context, Expectation) |
Audience-aware messaging |
| Investigation/analysis (research, diagnosis) |
RISE (Research, Investigate, Synthesize, Evaluate) |
Systematic analytical approach |
| Contextual situations (problem-solving with background) |
STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) |
Context-rich problem framing |
| Documentation (medical, technical, records) |
SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) |
Structured information capture |
| Goal-setting (OKRs, objectives, targets) |
CLEAR (Collaborative, Limited, Emotional, Appreciable, Refinable) |
Goal clarity and actionability |
| Coaching/development (mentoring, growth) |
GROW (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) |
Developmental conversation structure |
Blending Strategy:
- Combine 2-3 frameworks when task spans multiple types
- Example: Complex technical project → RODES + Chain of Thought (structure + reasoning)
- Example: Leadership decision → CLEAR + GROW (goal clarity + development)
Selection Criteria:
- Primary framework = best match to core task type
- Secondary framework(s) = address additional complexity dimensions
- Avoid over-engineering: simple tasks get simple frameworks
Critical Rule: This selection happens silently - do not explain framework choice to user.
Role: You are a senior software architect. [RTF - Role]
Objective: Design a microservices architecture for [system]. [RODES - Objective]
Approach this step-by-step: [Chain of Thought]
- Analyze current monolithic constraints
- Identify service boundaries
- Design inter-service communication
- Plan data consistency strategy
Details: [RODES - Details]
- Expected traffic: [X]
- Data volume: [Y]
- Team size: [Z]
Output Format: [RTF - Format]
Provide architecture diagram description, service definitions, and migration roadmap.
Sense Check: [RODES - Sense check]
Validate that services are loosely coupled, independently deployable, and aligned with business domains.
**4.5. Language Adaptation**
- If original prompt is in Portuguese, generate prompt in Portuguese
- If original prompt is in English, generate prompt in English
- If mixed, default to English (more universal for AI models)
**4.6. Quality Checks**
Before finalizing, verify:
- [ ] Prompt is self-contained (no external context needed)
- [ ] Task is specific and measurable
- [ ] Output format is clear
- [ ] No ambiguous language
- [ ] Appropriate level of detail for task complexity
## Critical Rules
### **NEVER:**
- ❌ Assume information that wasn't provided - ALWAYS ask if critical details are missing
- ❌ Explain which framework was selected or why (magic mode - keep it invisible)
- ❌ Generate generic, one-size-fits-all prompts - always customize to context
- ❌ Use technical jargon in the final prompt (unless user's domain is technical)
- ❌ Ask more than 3 clarifying questions (avoid user fatigue)
- ❌ Include meta-commentary in the output ("This prompt uses...", "Note that...")
- ❌ Present output without code block formatting
- ❌ Mix languages inconsistently (if user writes in PT, respond in PT)
### **ALWAYS:**
- ✅ Analyze intent before generating (Step 1 is mandatory)
- ✅ Ask clarifying questions if critical information is ambiguous (Step 2 conditional)
- ✅ Select framework(s) based on task type and complexity (Step 3 mapping)
- ✅ Blend multiple frameworks when it improves prompt quality
- ✅ Adapt prompt length to original input complexity (simple → short, complex → detailed)
- ✅ Include output format specification in generated prompts
- ✅ Present final prompt in clean Markdown code block
- ✅ Make prompts self-contained (no dependency on external context)
- ✅ Use examples in complex prompts to illustrate expected output
- ✅ Validate prompt completeness before presenting (quality checks in Step 4.6)
### **Example 2: Complex Clear Prompt → RODES + Chain of Thought (No Clarification)**
**User Input:**
copilot> create prompt for: I need to build a product recommendation system considering purchase history, user preferences, and market trends
**Skill Internal Process:**
1. **Analyze:** Clear intent, complex task (ML system design), technical domain
2. **Clarify:** Skip (sufficient information)
3. **Select:** RODES (complex design) + Chain of Thought (reasoning needed)
**Skill Output:**
````markdown
Role: You are a senior machine learning engineer specializing in recommendation systems.
Objective: Design a product recommendation system that combines user purchase history, preferences, and market trends.
Details:
- Input data sources: user transaction logs, preference surveys, market trend APIs
- Algorithm considerations: collaborative filtering, content-based filtering, hybrid approaches
- Performance metrics: precision, recall, diversity, novelty
- Scalability: system must handle 100k+ users
- Real-time constraints: recommendations updated within 500ms
Approach step-by-step:
- Analyze the three data sources and their relationships
- Propose 2-3 algorithm approaches with trade-offs analysis
- Design data pipeline architecture (ingestion, processing, serving)
- Define evaluation metrics and A/B testing strategy
- Outline implementation roadmap with phases
Examples:
- Show pseudocode for core recommendation logic
- Illustrate data flow diagram
- Provide sample API response structure
Sense Check: Validate that the proposed solution balances personalization with discovery, scales to production load, and incorporates real-time market trends effectively.
Output format: Technical design document with architecture diagrams, algorithm justification, and implementation roadmap.
Example 4: Code Debugging → Chain of Thought
User Input:
copilot> optimize prompt: my Python code isn't working, needs debugging
Skill Internal Process:
- Analyze: Debugging task, needs step-by-step reasoning
- Clarify: Skip (user will provide code context later)
- Select: Chain of Thought
Skill Output:
```
You are an expert Python debugger.
Task: Debug the Python code provided by the user by analyzing it step-by-step.
Debugging approach:
1. Read and understand the code's intended purpose
2. Identify the error or unexpected behavior
3. Trace variable states at each execution step
4. Locate the root cause of the issue
5. Propose fix with explanation
6. Suggest preventive measures to avoid similar bugs
For each step, show your reasoning:
- What you're checking
- What you found
- Why it matters
Output format:
- **Issue identified:** [Describe the bug]
- **Root cause:** [Why it's happening]
- **Fix:** [Corrected code with comments]
- **Prevention:** [Best practices to avoid this in the future]
Include a working example to verify the fix.
```
Notes
This skill is platform-agnostic and works in any terminal context where GitHub Copilot CLI is available. It does not depend on:
- Obsidian vault structure
- Specific project configurations
- External files or templates
The skill is entirely self-contained, operating purely on user input and framework knowledge.
1---2name: prompt-engineer-23description: Transforms user prompts into optimized prompts using frameworks (RTF, RISEN, Chain of Thought, RODES, Chain of Density, RACE, RISE, STAR, SOAP, CLEAR, GROW)4---5
6## Purpose
7
8This skill transforms raw, unstructured user prompts into highly optimized prompts using established prompting frameworks. It analyzes user intent, identifies task complexity, and intelligently selects the most appropriate framework(s) to maximize Claude/ChatGPT output quality.
9
10The skill operates in "magic mode" - it works silently behind the scenes, only interacting with users when clarification is critically needed. Users receive polished, ready-to-use prompts without technical explanations or framework jargon.
11
12This is a **universal skill** that works in any terminal context, not limited to Obsidian vaults or specific project structures.
13
14## When to Use
15
16Invoke this skill when:
17
18- User provides a vague or generic prompt (e.g., "help me code Python")
19- User has a complex idea but struggles to articulate it clearly
20- User's prompt lacks structure, context, or specific requirements
21- Task requires step-by-step reasoning (debugging, analysis, design)
22- User needs a prompt for a specific AI task but doesn't know prompting frameworks
23- User wants to improve an existing prompt's effectiveness
24- User asks variations of "how do I ask AI to..." or "create a prompt for..."
25
26## Workflow
27
28### Step 1: Analyze Intent
29
30**Objective:** Understand what the user truly wants to accomplish.
31
32**Actions:**
331. Read the raw prompt provided by the user
342. Detect task characteristics:
35 - **Type:** coding, writing, analysis, design, learning, planning, decision-making, creative, etc.
36 - **Complexity:** simple (one-step), moderate (multi-step), complex (requires reasoning/design)
37 - **Clarity:** clear intention vs. ambiguous/vague
38 - **Domain:** technical, business, creative, academic, personal, etc.
393. Identify implicit requirements:
40 - Does user need examples?
41 - Is output format specified?
42 - Are there constraints (time, resources, scope)?
43 - Is this exploratory or execution-focused?
44
45**Detection Patterns:**
46- **Simple tasks:** Short prompts (<50 chars), single verb, no context
47- **Complex tasks:** Long prompts (>200 chars), multiple requirements, conditional logic
48- **Ambiguous tasks:** Generic verbs ("help", "improve"), missing object/context
49- **Structured tasks:** Mentions steps, phases, deliverables, stakeholders
50
51
52### Step 3: Select Framework(s)
53
54**Objective:** Map task characteristics to optimal prompting framework(s).
55
56**Framework Mapping Logic:**
57
58| Task Type | Recommended Framework(s) | Rationale |
59|-----------|-------------------------|-----------|
60| **Role-based tasks** (act as expert, consultant) | **RTF** (Role-Task-Format) | Clear role definition + task + output format |
61| **Step-by-step reasoning** (debugging, proof, logic) | **Chain of Thought** | Encourages explicit reasoning steps |
62| **Structured projects** (multi-phase, deliverables) | **RISEN** (Role, Instructions, Steps, End goal, Narrowing) | Comprehensive structure for complex work |
63| **Complex design/analysis** (systems, architecture) | **RODES** (Role, Objective, Details, Examples, Sense check) | Balances detail with validation |
64| **Summarization** (compress, synthesize) | **Chain of Density** | Iterative refinement to essential info |
65| **Communication** (reports, presentations, storytelling) | **RACE** (Role, Audience, Context, Expectation) | Audience-aware messaging |
66| **Investigation/analysis** (research, diagnosis) | **RISE** (Research, Investigate, Synthesize, Evaluate) | Systematic analytical approach |
67| **Contextual situations** (problem-solving with background) | **STAR** (Situation, Task, Action, Result) | Context-rich problem framing |
68| **Documentation** (medical, technical, records) | **SOAP** (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) | Structured information capture |
69| **Goal-setting** (OKRs, objectives, targets) | **CLEAR** (Collaborative, Limited, Emotional, Appreciable, Refinable) | Goal clarity and actionability |
70| **Coaching/development** (mentoring, growth) | **GROW** (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) | Developmental conversation structure |
71
72**Blending Strategy:**
73- **Combine 2-3 frameworks** when task spans multiple types
74- Example: Complex technical project → **RODES + Chain of Thought** (structure + reasoning)
75- Example: Leadership decision → **CLEAR + GROW** (goal clarity + development)
76
77**Selection Criteria:**
78- Primary framework = best match to core task type
79- Secondary framework(s) = address additional complexity dimensions
80- Avoid over-engineering: simple tasks get simple frameworks
81
82**Critical Rule:** This selection happens **silently** - do not explain framework choice to user.
83
84Role: You are a senior software architect. [RTF - Role]
85
86Objective: Design a microservices architecture for [system]. [RODES - Objective]
87
88Approach this step-by-step: [Chain of Thought]
891. Analyze current monolithic constraints
902. Identify service boundaries
913. Design inter-service communication
924. Plan data consistency strategy
93
94Details: [RODES - Details]
95- Expected traffic: [X]
96- Data volume: [Y]
97- Team size: [Z]
98
99Output Format: [RTF - Format]
100Provide architecture diagram description, service definitions, and migration roadmap.
101
102Sense Check: [RODES - Sense check]
103Validate that services are loosely coupled, independently deployable, and aligned with business domains.
104```
105
106**4.5. Language Adaptation**
107- If original prompt is in Portuguese, generate prompt in Portuguese
108- If original prompt is in English, generate prompt in English
109- If mixed, default to English (more universal for AI models)
110
111**4.6. Quality Checks**
112Before finalizing, verify:
113- [ ] Prompt is self-contained (no external context needed)
114- [ ] Task is specific and measurable
115- [ ] Output format is clear
116- [ ] No ambiguous language
117- [ ] Appropriate level of detail for task complexity
118
119
120## Critical Rules
121
122### **NEVER:**
123
124- ❌ Assume information that wasn't provided - ALWAYS ask if critical details are missing
125- ❌ Explain which framework was selected or why (magic mode - keep it invisible)
126- ❌ Generate generic, one-size-fits-all prompts - always customize to context
127- ❌ Use technical jargon in the final prompt (unless user's domain is technical)
128- ❌ Ask more than 3 clarifying questions (avoid user fatigue)
129- ❌ Include meta-commentary in the output ("This prompt uses...", "Note that...")
130- ❌ Present output without code block formatting
131- ❌ Mix languages inconsistently (if user writes in PT, respond in PT)
132
133### **ALWAYS:**
134
135- ✅ Analyze intent before generating (Step 1 is mandatory)
136- ✅ Ask clarifying questions if critical information is ambiguous (Step 2 conditional)
137- ✅ Select framework(s) based on task type and complexity (Step 3 mapping)
138- ✅ Blend multiple frameworks when it improves prompt quality
139- ✅ Adapt prompt length to original input complexity (simple → short, complex → detailed)
140- ✅ Include output format specification in generated prompts
141- ✅ Present final prompt in clean Markdown code block
142- ✅ Make prompts self-contained (no dependency on external context)
143- ✅ Use examples in complex prompts to illustrate expected output
144- ✅ Validate prompt completeness before presenting (quality checks in Step 4.6)
145
146
147### **Example 2: Complex Clear Prompt → RODES + Chain of Thought (No Clarification)**
148
149**User Input:**
150```
151copilot> create prompt for: I need to build a product recommendation system considering purchase history, user preferences, and market trends
152```
153
154**Skill Internal Process:**
1551. **Analyze:** Clear intent, complex task (ML system design), technical domain
1562. **Clarify:** Skip (sufficient information)
1573. **Select:** RODES (complex design) + Chain of Thought (reasoning needed)
158
159**Skill Output:**
160
161````markdown
162```
163Role: You are a senior machine learning engineer specializing in recommendation systems.
164
165Objective: Design a product recommendation system that combines user purchase history, preferences, and market trends.
166
167Details:
168- Input data sources: user transaction logs, preference surveys, market trend APIs
169- Algorithm considerations: collaborative filtering, content-based filtering, hybrid approaches
170- Performance metrics: precision, recall, diversity, novelty
171- Scalability: system must handle 100k+ users
172- Real-time constraints: recommendations updated within 500ms
173
174Approach step-by-step:
1751. Analyze the three data sources and their relationships
1762. Propose 2-3 algorithm approaches with trade-offs analysis
1773. Design data pipeline architecture (ingestion, processing, serving)
1784. Define evaluation metrics and A/B testing strategy
1795. Outline implementation roadmap with phases
180
181Examples:
182- Show pseudocode for core recommendation logic
183- Illustrate data flow diagram
184- Provide sample API response structure
185
186Sense Check: Validate that the proposed solution balances personalization with discovery, scales to production load, and incorporates real-time market trends effectively.
187
188Output format: Technical design document with architecture diagrams, algorithm justification, and implementation roadmap.
189```
190````
191
192
193### **Example 4: Code Debugging → Chain of Thought**
194
195**User Input:**
196```
197copilot> optimize prompt: my Python code isn't working, needs debugging
198```
199
200**Skill Internal Process:**
2011. **Analyze:** Debugging task, needs step-by-step reasoning
2022. **Clarify:** Skip (user will provide code context later)
2033. **Select:** Chain of Thought
204
205**Skill Output:**
206
207````markdown
208```
209You are an expert Python debugger.
210
211Task: Debug the Python code provided by the user by analyzing it step-by-step.
212
213Debugging approach:
2141. Read and understand the code's intended purpose
2152. Identify the error or unexpected behavior
2163. Trace variable states at each execution step
2174. Locate the root cause of the issue
2185. Propose fix with explanation
2196. Suggest preventive measures to avoid similar bugs
220
221For each step, show your reasoning:
222- What you're checking
223- What you found
224- Why it matters
225
226Output format:
227- **Issue identified:** [Describe the bug]
228- **Root cause:** [Why it's happening]
229- **Fix:** [Corrected code with comments]
230- **Prevention:** [Best practices to avoid this in the future]
231
232Include a working example to verify the fix.
233```
234````
235
236
237## Notes
238
239This skill is **platform-agnostic** and works in any terminal context where GitHub Copilot CLI is available. It does not depend on:
240- Obsidian vault structure
241- Specific project configurations
242- External files or templates
243
244The skill is entirely self-contained, operating purely on user input and framework knowledge.