# Optimize Gpt 6 Astra Prompts

> Clarify, audit, migrate, and rewrite prompts for GPT-6 Astra using OpenAI's official latest-model prompting guidance. Use when a user asks to optimize, improve, rewrite, debug, migrate, or design a GPT-6 Astra prompt, including requests phrased as GPT-6, Astra, or gpt-6-astra prompt optimization, or when an underspecified prompt needs guided clarification before a copy-ready rewrite. Ask only for missing information that would materially change the result; otherwise preserve intent and produce a lean, outcome-first prompt with explicit autonomy, instruction-priority, style, and completion criteria.

- Skill: `ichendev/optimize-gpt-6-astra-prompts` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ichendev/optimize-gpt-6-astra-prompts`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ichendev/optimize-gpt-6-astra-prompts/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: IchenDEV (https://skillmd.com/u/ichendev)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ichendev/optimize-gpt-6-astra-prompts

---


# Optimize GPT-6 Astra Prompts

Turn rough ideas and existing prompt stacks into copy-ready GPT-6 Astra prompts. Preserve the user's intent and hard constraints, ask for genuinely blocking information, and apply Astra-specific mitigations only where the task or observed behavior requires them.

## Use the official basis

Read [references/official-guidance.md](references/official-guidance.md) when model-specific rationale, API-setting guidance, migration notes, or the longer checklist is needed. Treat its URLs as canonical sources and its prose as a dated summary. Fetch the live OpenAI pages before making claims about the current model alias, parameters, availability, or other facts that may change.

For cleaning repository Skills, `AGENTS.md`, or Sol-era coding-agent scaffolding (wrong skill loads, full-repo pre-reads, over-testing, early stops), use `$audit-gpt-6-astra-skills` instead of stuffing harness cleanup into a prompt rewrite.

## Follow the workflow

### 1. Capture the prompt contract

Identify the following from the user's message, pasted prompt, or referenced file:

- intended user-visible outcome;
- inputs and context the model will receive;
- hard constraints and facts to preserve;
- required output shape, audience, and language;
- evidence, tool use, or validation needed for success;
- side effects the model may take and actions that require approval;
- autonomy level: when to ask, when to persist, and when approval is the final step;
- fallback or stopping behavior when required information is unavailable.

Treat these as diagnostic dimensions, not mandatory sections. Keep a simple rewriting prompt simple.

If the user supplies a layered prompt stack, preserve the separation between system, developer, user, and tool-description content. Do not silently move instructions between trust levels.

### 2. Apply the clarity gate

Ask a question only when the missing or conflicting information is blocking: two reasonable answers would lead to materially different prompts, outputs, permissions, or success criteria.

Treat the following as blocking by default:

- a vague new-prompt request that names only a topic and generic verb while the intended decision, audience, or deliverable could vary materially;
- an action prompt that can send, publish, purchase, delete, change records, modify terms, or affect another person when the authorization and approval boundary is not explicit;
- a task that depends on an unspecified source, system, policy, tool, or evidence set whose choice changes what the model may conclude or do;
- conflicting instructions about scope, output, permissions, evidence, or completion;
- a strict output contract whose required fields or semantics cannot be inferred safely.

Do not turn these gaps into placeholders, invented policies, assumed access, or a provisional workflow. A conservative execution policy does not cure an undefined goal or missing authorization.

Proceed without asking when the core outcome and contract are already clear and the missing detail is cosmetic or safely local. For a new prompt, require enough information to distinguish the intended use from other plausible uses; for an existing concrete prompt, preserve its contract and avoid demanding optional context.

When clarification is blocking:

1. Ask one to three high-information questions in a single turn.
2. Explain choices briefly when the user may not know the terminology.
3. Offer concrete options or a short fill-in reply when that makes answering easier.
4. Do not present a supposedly final optimized prompt yet.
5. Repeat the gate after the reply and ask again only if a material ambiguity remains.

Ask for the smallest missing fact. Do not interrogate the user for optional tone preferences, minor formatting choices, or details that can be handled with a conservative assumption.

If the user explicitly delegates a choice, make a reasonable assumption, label it after the prompt, and continue. Never invent source facts, policies, permissions, metrics, or product capabilities.

### 3. Rewrite for GPT-6 Astra

Apply only changes that improve the prompt contract. Prefer a surgical rewrite of a working GPT-5.6 or earlier prompt unless the user asks for a broader redesign.

Astra-specific mitigations — add only when relevant:

- **Initiative and follow-through:** If the product needs autonomous completion, state that action-shaped user requests authorize work, bias toward action from context, persist until the goal is complete for reversible work, and ask for approval only after preparing a concrete, reviewable result. Do not add unsolicited hypothetical risk checklists.
- **Instruction priority:** When skills, `AGENTS.md`, or other loaded files can conflict with the user, make user instructions take precedence and require naming the exact skill instruction that caused a pause or diversion.
- **Writing style:** Astra tends toward lists, tables, and dense formatting. Specify prose, structure, jargon level, and banned stock phrases when the product needs a different voice.
- **Subagent delegation:** If the harness supports parallel agents, state when and how much to delegate. Ask for legible inter-agent messages when humans may read them.
- **Testing and verification:** For coding agents, calibrate verification to change impact so small reversible edits are not over-tested.

Shared rewrite rules that still apply:

- Lead with the outcome and define what completion means.
- State each rule once; remove repetition, obsolete scaffolding, and irrelevant examples.
- Resolve contradictions. If a conflict cannot be resolved from context, return to the clarity gate.
- Preserve explicit user values and factual claims exactly unless correction was requested.
- Prefer decision rules over blanket `always`, `never`, or keyword-trigger rules. Reserve absolutes for true invariants.
- Specify required evidence, validation, and stop conditions when correctness depends on them.
- Define autonomy and approval boundaries once for prompts that can read, change, purchase, publish, message, delete, or otherwise act.
- Expose or describe only relevant tools. State prerequisites, important result fields, fallback behavior, and direct-versus-programmatic routing only when they affect the task.
- Specify output content and structure. For short answers, name the facts, caveats, and next actions that must survive trimming.
- Preserve the source language unless the user requests another language.
- Replace requests to "think step by step" or "think harder" with outcome, evidence, and verification requirements. Keep API reasoning settings outside the prompt.
- Keep optional sections out. Do not force every prompt into a large template.

### 4. Validate before returning

Silently run all applicable checks:

1. **Intent:** Does the rewrite solve the same task without widening or narrowing scope?
2. **Preservation:** Are all user facts, explicit values, hard constraints, and required fields retained?
3. **Clarity:** Could two reasonable agents still disagree about the core outcome, permission boundary, or required output?
4. **Completeness:** Are success, evidence, validation, and stopping conditions defined where they materially matter?
5. **Consistency:** Are any instructions duplicated, contradictory, or placed in the wrong prompt layer?
6. **Leanness:** Can any clause be removed without changing behavior?
7. **Executability:** Can the model act using only the stated inputs and tools, or does a blocking dependency remain?
8. **Non-invention:** Did the rewrite add facts, access, permissions, or capabilities the user never supplied?
9. **Astra fit:** Were initiative, instruction-priority, style, delegation, and verification controls added only when needed, and do they match the product's autonomy level?

If a check exposes blocking ambiguity, ask the user instead of guessing. Otherwise revise until every applicable check passes.

### 5. Return the result

Honor any output format the user requested. Otherwise use the smallest suitable form.

For a completed optimization, return:

1. `Optimized prompt`: one copy-ready fenced block.
2. `Key changes`: at most five concise bullets, only when useful.
3. `Assumptions`: include only assumptions actually made.
4. `API settings`: include only when the user asks for runtime configuration or when a setting is essential to the stated use case. Prefer `model: gpt-6-astra`, Responses API for tool calling, and keep `reasoning.effort` outside prompt prose. Do not recommend `none` effort.

When the user requests prompt-only output, return only the copy-ready prompt. Do not add analysis inside the prompt unless the user wants it there.

For blocking clarification, return only:

- a short statement that the prompt cannot yet be optimized reliably;
- the one to three questions;
- an optional one-line answer template.

Do not bury the questions beneath a provisional rewrite.

## Avoid common regressions

- Do not add role, personality, tools, or stop-rule sections when they do not change behavior.
- Do not paste every official Astra snippet into every prompt; apply only the relevant mitigation.
- Do not replace specific requirements with generic instructions such as "be concise," "be thorough," or "use tools efficiently."
- Do not use prompt length or section count as a proxy for quality.
- Do not ask for information merely to make the prompt perfect; ask only when it changes the contract materially.
- Do not recommend maximum reasoning effort globally. Fix missing success criteria, routing, dependencies, or validation before increasing effort.
- Do not claim that a rewrite is better solely because it is shorter. Preserve product requirements and measured fixes.

## Completion bar

Finish only when the prompt is copy-ready, blocking ambiguity is resolved, explicit constraints are preserved, the rewrite is lean, Astra-specific controls match the product need, and the validation checklist passes. If those conditions cannot be met, state the smallest missing information instead of fabricating a complete prompt.