Kitt Create Meta Prompts

Instructions without markers apply to all agents.

Every execution produces a SUMMARY.md for quick human scanning without reading full outputs.

Each prompt gets its own folder in .prompts/ with its output artifacts, enabling clear provenance and chain detection.

IF no context provided (skill invoked without description): → IMMEDIATELY use AskUserQuestion with:

• header: "Purpose"
• question: "What is the purpose of this prompt?"
• options:
  • "Do" - Execute a task, produce an artifact
  • "Plan" - Create an approach, roadmap, or strategy
  • "Research" - Gather information or understand something
  • "Refine" - Improve an existing research or plan output

After selection, ask: "Describe what you want to accomplish" (they select "Other" to provide free text).

IF context was provided: → Check if purpose is inferable from keywords:

• implement, build, create, fix, add, refactor → Do
• plan, roadmap, approach, strategy, decide, phases → Plan
• research, understand, learn, gather, analyze, explore → Research
• refine, improve, deepen, expand, iterate, update → Refine

→ If unclear, ask the Purpose question above as first contextual question → If clear, proceed to adaptive_analysis with inferred purpose

• Purpose: Do, Plan, Research, or Refine
• Topic identifier: Kebab-case identifier for file naming (e.g., auth, stripe-payments)
• Complexity: Simple vs complex (affects prompt depth)
• Prompt structure: Single vs multiple prompts
• Target (Refine only): Which existing output to improve

If topic identifier not obvious, ask:

• header: "Topic"
• question: "What topic/feature is this for? (used for file naming)"
• Let user provide via "Other" option
• Enforce kebab-case (convert spaces/underscores to hyphens)

For Refine purpose, also identify target output from .prompts/*/ to improve.

If found:

1. List them: "Found existing files: auth-research.md (in 001-auth-research/), stripe-plan.md (in 005-stripe-plan/)"
2. Use AskUserQuestion:
   • header: "Reference"
   • question: "Should this prompt reference any existing research or plans?"
   • options: List found files + "None"
   • multiSelect: true

Match by topic keyword when possible (e.g., "auth plan" → suggest auth-research.md).

Load questions from: references/question-bank.md

Route by purpose:

• Do → artifact type, scope, approach
• Plan → plan purpose, format, constraints
• Research → depth, sources, output format
• Refine → target selection, feedback, preservation

• header: "Ready"
• question: "Ready to create the prompt?"
• options:
  • "Proceed" - Create the prompt with current context
  • "Ask more questions" - I have more details to clarify
  • "Let me add context" - I want to provide additional information

Loop until "Proceed" selected.

"Creating a {purpose} prompt for: {topic} Folder: .prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/ References: {list any chained files}"

Then proceed to generation.

Load purpose-specific patterns:

• Do: references/do-patterns.md
• Plan: references/plan-patterns.md
• Research: references/research-patterns.md
• Refine: references/refine-patterns.md

Load intelligence rules: references/intelligence-rules.md

1. Objective: What to accomplish, why it matters
2. Context: Referenced files (@), dynamic context (!)
3. Requirements: Specific instructions for the task
4. Output specification: Where to save, what structure
5. Metadata requirements: For research/plan outputs, specify XML metadata structure
6. SUMMARY.md requirement: All prompts must create a SUMMARY.md file
7. Success criteria: How to know it worked

For Research and Plan prompts, output must include:

• <confidence> - How confident in findings
• <dependencies> - What's needed to proceed
• <open_questions> - What remains uncertain
• <assumptions> - What was assumed

All prompts must create SUMMARY.md with:

• One-liner - Substantive description of outcome
• Version - v1 or iteration info
• Key Findings - Actionable takeaways
• Files Created - (Do prompts only)
• Decisions Needed - What requires user input
• Blockers - External impediments
• Next Step - Concrete forward action

After saving prompt(s), present inline (not AskUserQuestion):

What's next?

1. Run prompt now
2. Review/edit prompt first
3. Save for later
4. Other

Choose (1-4): _

</single_prompt_presentation>

<multi_prompt_presentation>

Prompts created:

• .prompts/001-auth-research/001-auth-research.md
• .prompts/002-auth-plan/002-auth-plan.md
• .prompts/003-auth-implement/003-auth-implement.md

Detected execution order: Sequential (002 references 001 output, 003 references 002 output)

What's next?

1. Run all prompts (sequential)
2. Review/edit prompts first
3. Save for later
4. Other

Choose (1-4): _

</multi_prompt_presentation>
</step_2_present>

<step_3_execute>
<title>Execution Engine</title>

<execution_modes>
<single_prompt>
Straightforward execution of one prompt.

1. Read prompt file contents
2. Spawn Task agent with subagent_type="general-purpose"
3. Include in task prompt:
   - The complete prompt contents
   - Output location: `.prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/{topic}-{purpose}.md`
4. Wait for completion
5. Validate output (see validation section)
6. Archive prompt to `completed/` subfolder
7. Report results with next-step options
</single_prompt>

<sequential_execution>
For chained prompts where each depends on previous output.

1. Build execution queue from dependency order
2. For each prompt in queue:
   a. Read prompt file
   b. Spawn Task agent
   c. Wait for completion
   d. Validate output
   e. If validation fails → stop, report failure, offer recovery options
   f. If success → archive prompt, continue to next
3. Report consolidated results

<progress_reporting>
Show progress during execution:

Executing 1/3: 001-auth-research... ✓ Executing 2/3: 002-auth-plan... ✓ Executing 3/3: 003-auth-implement... (running)

</progress_reporting>
</sequential_execution>

<parallel_execution>
For independent prompts with no dependencies.

1. Read all prompt files
2. **CRITICAL**: Spawn ALL Task agents in a SINGLE message
   - This is required for true parallel execution
   - Each task includes its output location
3. Wait for all to complete
4. Validate all outputs
5. Archive all prompts
6. Report consolidated results (successes and failures)

<failure_handling>
Unlike sequential, parallel continues even if some fail:
- Collect all results
- Archive successful prompts
- Report failures with details
- Offer to retry failed prompts
</failure_handling>
</parallel_execution>

<mixed_dependencies>
For complex DAGs (e.g., two parallel research → one plan).

1. Analyze dependency graph from @ references
2. Group into execution layers:
   - Layer 1: No dependencies (run parallel)
   - Layer 2: Depends only on layer 1 (run after layer 1 completes)
   - Layer 3: Depends on layer 2, etc.
3. Execute each layer:
   - Parallel within layer
   - Sequential between layers
4. Stop if any dependency fails (downstream prompts can't run)

<example>

Layer 1 (parallel): 001-api-research, 002-db-research Layer 2 (after layer 1): 003-architecture-plan Layer 3 (after layer 2): 004-implement

</example>
</mixed_dependencies>
</execution_modes>

<dependency_detection>
<automatic_detection>
Scan prompt contents for @ references to determine dependencies:

1. Parse each prompt for `@.prompts/{number}-{topic}/` patterns
2. Build dependency graph
3. Detect cycles (error if found)
4. Determine execution order

<inference_rules>
If no explicit @ references found, infer from purpose:
- Research prompts: No dependencies (can parallel)
- Plan prompts: Depend on same-topic research
- Do prompts: Depend on same-topic plan

Override with explicit references when present.
</inference_rules>
</automatic_detection>

<missing_dependencies>
If a prompt references output that doesn't exist:

1. Check if it's another prompt in this session (will be created)
2. Check if it exists in `.prompts/*/` (already completed)
3. If truly missing:
   - Warn user: "002-auth-plan references auth-research.md which doesn't exist"
   - Offer: Create the missing research prompt first? / Continue anyway? / Cancel?
</missing_dependencies>
</dependency_detection>

<validation>
<output_validation>
After each prompt completes, verify success:

1. **File exists**: Check output file was created
2. **Not empty**: File has content (> 100 chars)
3. **Metadata present** (for research/plan): Check for required XML tags
   - `<confidence>`
   - `<dependencies>`
   - `<open_questions>`
   - `<assumptions>`
4. **SUMMARY.md exists**: Check SUMMARY.md was created
5. **SUMMARY.md complete**: Has required sections (Key Findings, Decisions Needed, Blockers, Next Step)
6. **One-liner is substantive**: Not generic like "Research completed"

<validation_failure>
If validation fails:
- Report what's missing
- Offer options:
  - Retry the prompt
  - Continue anyway (for non-critical issues)
  - Stop and investigate
</validation_failure>
</output_validation>
</validation>

<failure_handling>
<sequential_failure>
Stop the chain immediately:

✗ Failed at 2/3: 002-auth-plan

Completed:

• 001-auth-research ✓ (archived)

Failed:

• 002-auth-plan: Output file not created

Not started:

• 003-auth-implement

What's next?

1. Retry 002-auth-plan
2. View error details
3. Stop here (keep completed work)
4. Other

</sequential_failure>

<parallel_failure>
Continue others, report all results:

Parallel execution completed with errors:

✓ 001-api-research (archived) ✗ 002-db-research: Validation failed - missing tag ✓ 003-ui-research (archived)

What's next?

1. Retry failed prompt (002)
2. View error details
3. Continue without 002
4. Other

</parallel_failure>
</failure_handling>

<archiving>
<archive_timing>
- **Sequential**: Archive each prompt immediately after successful completion
  - Provides clear state if execution stops mid-chain
- **Parallel**: Archive all at end after collecting results
  - Keeps prompts available for potential retry

<archive_operation>
Move prompt file to completed subfolder:
```bash
mv .prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}.md \
   .prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/completed/

Output file stays in place (not moved).

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Auth Research Summary

JWT with jose library and httpOnly cookies recommended

Key Findings

• jose outperforms jsonwebtoken with better TypeScript support • httpOnly cookies required (localStorage is XSS vulnerable) • Refresh rotation is OWASP standard

Decisions Needed

None - ready for planning

Blockers

None

Next Step

Create auth-plan.md ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

What's next?

1. Create planning prompt (auth-plan)
2. View full research output
3. Done
4. Other

Display the actual SUMMARY.md content inline so user sees findings without opening files.
</single_result>

<chain_result>

✓ Chain completed: auth workflow

Results: ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 001-auth-research JWT with jose library and httpOnly cookies recommended Decisions: None • Blockers: None

002-auth-plan 4-phase implementation: types → JWT core → refresh → tests Decisions: Approve 15-min token expiry • Blockers: None

003-auth-implement JWT middleware complete with 6 files created Decisions: Review before Phase 2 • Blockers: None ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

All prompts archived. Full summaries in .prompts/*/SUMMARY.md

What's next?

1. Review implementation
2. Run tests
3. Create new prompt chain
4. Other

For chains, show condensed one-liner from each SUMMARY.md with decisions/blockers flagged.
</chain_result>
</result_presentation>

<special_cases>
<re_running_completed>
If user wants to re-run an already-completed prompt:

1. Check if prompt is in `completed/` subfolder
2. Move it back to parent folder
3. Optionally backup existing output: `{output}.bak`
4. Execute normally
</re_running_completed>

<output_conflicts>
If output file already exists:

1. For re-runs: Backup existing → `{filename}.bak`
2. For new runs: Should not happen (unique numbering)
3. If conflict detected: Ask user - Overwrite? / Rename? / Cancel?
</output_conflicts>

<commit_handling>
After successful execution:

1. Do NOT auto-commit (user controls git workflow)
2. Mention what files were created/modified
3. User can commit when ready

Exception: If user explicitly requests commit, stage and commit:
- Output files created
- Prompts archived
- Any implementation changes (for Do prompts)
</commit_handling>

<recursive_prompts>
If a prompt's output includes instructions to create more prompts:

1. This is advanced usage - don't auto-detect
2. Present the output to user
3. User can invoke skill again to create follow-up prompts
4. Maintains user control over prompt creation
</recursive_prompts>
</special_cases>
</step_3_execute>

</automated_workflow>

<reference_guides>
**Prompt patterns by purpose:**
- [references/do-patterns.md](references/do-patterns.md) - Execution prompts + output structure
- [references/plan-patterns.md](references/plan-patterns.md) - Planning prompts + plan.md structure
- [references/research-patterns.md](references/research-patterns.md) - Research prompts + research.md structure
- [references/refine-patterns.md](references/refine-patterns.md) - Iteration prompts + versioning

**Shared templates:**
- [references/summary-template.md](references/summary-template.md) - SUMMARY.md structure and field requirements
- [references/metadata-guidelines.md](references/metadata-guidelines.md) - Confidence, dependencies, open questions, assumptions

**Supporting references:**
- [references/question-bank.md](references/question-bank.md) - Intake questions by purpose
- [references/intelligence-rules.md](references/intelligence-rules.md) - Extended thinking, parallel tools, depth decisions
</reference_guides>

<success_criteria>
**Prompt Creation:**
- Intake gate completed with purpose and topic identified
- Chain detection performed, relevant files referenced
- Prompt generated with correct structure for purpose
- Folder created in `.prompts/` with correct naming
- Output file location specified in prompt
- SUMMARY.md requirement included in prompt
- Metadata requirements included for Research/Plan outputs
- Quality controls included for Research outputs (verification checklist, QA, pre-submission)
- Streaming write instructions included for Research outputs
- Decision tree presented

**Execution (if user chooses to run):**
- Dependencies correctly detected and ordered
- Prompts executed in correct order (sequential/parallel/mixed)
- Output validated after each completion
- SUMMARY.md created with all required sections
- One-liner is substantive (not generic)
- Failed prompts handled gracefully with recovery options
- Successful prompts archived to `completed/` subfolder
- SUMMARY.md displayed inline in results
- Results presented with decisions/blockers flagged

**Research Quality (for Research prompts):**
- Verification checklist completed
- Quality report distinguishes verified from assumed claims
- Sources consulted listed with URLs
- Confidence levels assigned to findings
- Critical claims verified with official documentation
</success_criteria>