gabrielmoreira Prompt Creator
Author prompts that pass prompt-review's five gates by construction. The gates are the quality bar; invert them, and you build to standard the first time.
Mirrors skill-creator's seven-phase structure with prompt-specific guidance. If a phase here disagrees with skill-creator on the shared scaffold, skill-creator wins; this file owns only the per-type guidance.
When to Use
- Authoring a new prompt in
.github/prompts/ - Refactoring an existing prompt (rename, scope tighten, step revision)
- Promoting a Mall prompt into your heir's brain
When not to use
- Authoring a skill (the procedure body) → use skill-creator. Prompts are entry-points; skills are bodies.
- Authoring an instruction (always-on or pattern-applied rule) → use instruction-creator
- Authoring an agent (delegated sub-process role) → use agent-creator
The Seven Phases
Each phase inverts one of the five gates. Author against the phase, pass the gate.
Phase 1 — Intent capture
Answer in writing before any drafting:
- What workflow does this kick off? One sentence. If it contains "and" / "+", you have two prompts — split.
- What slash-command does the user type? The filename (minus
.prompt.md) becomes/<name>. Pick something a user would intuitively type./review-instructiongood;/v2-thing-dobad. - What skill does this prompt invoke? Most prompts are thin wrappers that call a skill. If the answer is "no skill, the prompt carries the workflow", stop — author the skill first, then the prompt.
Phase 2 — Prior-art scan
Get-ChildItem .github/prompts/*.prompt.md
Select-String -Path .github/prompts/*.prompt.md -Pattern "<keyword>"
If another prompt covers the same workflow, extend it. If a Mall prompt covers it, adopt.
Phase 3 — Draft against Gate 1 (Spec)
Frontmatter template:
---
description: "<third-person, what + when to invoke, ≤1024 chars>"
lastReviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
---
Do NOT add mode: agent — per current Microsoft Learn prompt-files spec, this field is deprecated. Existing prompts may carry it during sweep transition; new prompts should not.
File location: .github/prompts/<kebab-name>.prompt.md (flat — no subfolders).
Slash-picker discoverability: the filename IS the user's typing surface. After you pick a name, mentally type /<name> and ask: would a user trying to find this workflow guess that string? If not, rename.
Phase 4 — Draft against Gate 2 (Quality)
| Criterion | How you author for it |
|---|---|
| Imperative voice | Verbs in the imperative ("Run", "Read", "Apply", "Save"). |
| Numbered steps | The prompt's body is a numbered step list. Brief context paragraph allowed before the steps; nothing else. |
| Single workflow scope | One goal. No "menus" of unrelated commands. |
| ≤100 lines | If you need more, the workflow belongs in a skill the prompt invokes. |
| Falsifier | Prompts <30 lines may inline a one-line falsifier; longer prompts need an explicit ## Would Revise If section. |
Template structure:
---
description: "..."
lastReviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
---
# /<prompt-name>
<one-paragraph context: what skill this invokes, what the user gets>
Steps:
1. <imperative action>
2. <imperative action>
3. <imperative action>
<optional: conditions / branches / output format>
Phase 5 — Draft against Gate 3 (Scope)
| Target | Route |
|---|---|
| Generic developer workflow (status, save-note, banner) | Heir baseline |
| Project-specific workflow | That project's local-only repo |
| External-surface command | Not an ACT prompt — author a Mall unit |
Workflow vs body distinction: the prompt invokes the skill; the skill carries the procedure. If your prompt body has more than ~10 numbered steps, it's drifting into skill territory.
Phase 6 — Draft against Gate 4 (Safety)
Same checks as skill-creator Phase 6. Prompt-specific: if the workflow invokes destructive operations (force-push, drop, delete), the step list must include an explicit user-confirmation step before the destructive call.
Phase 7 — Dogfood self-audit
Before committing, run prompt-review's five gates. Verdict lives in the commit message.
Slash-picker test: imagine the prompt appears in a picker alongside your existing prompts. Is it discoverable by name? Does the description make its purpose obvious?
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-pattern | Correction |
|---|---|
| Authoring a prompt before its underlying skill exists | Author the skill first; the prompt is the entry-point |
Adding mode: agent to a new prompt |
Deprecated per Microsoft Learn spec. Drop it. |
| Bundling unrelated commands into a "menu" prompt | One workflow per prompt |
| Cryptic prompt name | Filename = typing surface. If a user can't guess /<name>, rename. |
| Letting the prompt body grow into a procedure | If you need more than ~10 steps, the workflow belongs in a skill |
Referencing a retired skill in Steps: |
Gate 5 semantic failure. Check that step references resolve. |
Falsifiability
This skill's design has failed if any of the following occur within 90 days:
- ≥2 prompts authored using this guide fail
prompt-reviewon first self-audit - No new prompts authored via this guide in 90 days (decorative — sunset)
- Slash-picker discoverability check produces consistent miscalibration (cryptic names accepted, or obvious names rejected) ≥3 times in a quarter
Track as you would any falsified discipline (commit log, retraining notes, or curation ledger if your repo ships one) tagged [PROMPT-CREATOR-MISS].
Related
- prompt-review — the five gates this skill inverts
- skill-creator — sibling for skills; canonical seven-phase scaffold
- instruction-creator — sibling for instructions
- agent-creator — sibling for agents
- act-pass — required for medium-stakes prompt authoring