# Prompt It > Before a substantial new task, ask “Prompt it?”; on yes, research it read-only with the user-selected model and draft an evidence-backed execution brief plus model staffing for approval. On no, proceed normally. Skip the gate for questions, status checks, lookups, conversational replies, follow-ups already underway, and one-line edits. - Skill: `marcosathanasoulis/prompt-it` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add marcosathanasoulis/prompt-it` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/marcosathanasoulis/prompt-it/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: marcosathanasoulis (https://skillmd.com/u/marcosathanasoulis) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/marcosathanasoulis/prompt-it --- # Prompt It Turn a substantial request into a researched, reviewable execution brief before implementation. The user approves the brief and staffing after seeing what the research changed. The same canonical workflow applies in Codex and Claude Code; use the originating host's native inventory, tools and authority. A model or connector available in another host is not automatically available here. ## Gate substantial new tasks Before implementation, delegation, repository inspection, planning, or an external write for a substantial new task, ask exactly: **“Prompt it?”** - If the user says no, proceed normally without this workflow. - If the user says yes, begin the bounded research phase below. - If the user directly says “prompt it” or asks for a prompt to review, treat that as yes; do not ask the gate again. - Do not ask for questions, status checks, read-only lookups, conversational replies, follow-ups within work already underway, or one-line edits. - Infer immediate intent. An unfinished sentence, acknowledgement, or request for an update does not open a separate task. - If a request initially appears substantial but research proves it is a tiny change, say so in the brief handoff and keep the brief correspondingly short. ## Research before drafting The user's yes authorizes the currently selected coordinator model to perform the read-only research reasonably needed to make the brief accurate. This is research authorization, not implementation authorization. ### What the research phase may do Use relevant read-only sources available in the current environment, including: - user-provided files, examples, links, and prior decisions; - applicable instructions, project memory, current coordination evidence, repository files, tests, history, prior prompts, issues, and design docs; - code-graph, search, context, and impact tools required by repository rules; - relevant neighboring repositories and existing integration seams; - current official product or API documentation when facts may have changed; - read-only inspection of an in-scope connected system when the user has placed it in scope and existing permissions, privacy rules, and project instructions allow that access. Use the user's selected model in the main thread for the research that shapes scope, architecture, risks, or open questions. The coordinator owns this discovery and final synthesis; helpers supplement it with bounded evidence gathering or critique. Generic Prompt it consent permits native read-only research helpers when runtime rules allow. Announce the exact staffing, question, sources, and read-only scope before dispatch. No helper receives implementation authority. When research benefits from helpers or an independent second opinion, read [Research teams](references/research-teams.md). External review research needs explicit bounded authorization; reuse existing session authorization for the exact route and scope instead of asking again. Generic consent never activates external execute mode, key-backed runs, new costs, or connector access. Generic research consent does **not** authorize: - implementation edits other than writing the brief; - worktree or branch creation, commits, or implementation-agent dispatch; - external research dispatch without explicit bounded authority and route qualification; - production writes, deployments, configuration changes, purchases, messages to people, credential changes, or destructive operations; - exposing secret values, private payloads, or unnecessary sensitive data; - a read that violates repository preflight, customer, privacy, or access rules. Explicit authorization for a qualified external review run may include only the documented disposable review worktree and captured result artifacts that its runner creates and audits. This exception does not permit implementation or arbitrary research files, branches or worktrees. If research would create material cost, side effects, privacy exposure, or need authority beyond the existing authorization, ask before that action. Reuse existing bounded authority; do not relabel implementation as research. ### Evidence pass Investigate enough to answer the questions that matter for this task: 1. What already exists, and where are the real extension or replacement seams? 2. Which assumptions are verified, contradicted, inferred, or still unknown? 3. Which prior decisions, active branches, PRs, designs, data contracts, or neighboring systems constrain the work? 4. What security, privacy, compatibility, failure, migration, rollout, and observability implications are relevant? 5. How can the result be proven through meaningful tests and, when appropriate, a safe real-environment check? Adapt this pass to the task; do not perform every category mechanically. Verify time-sensitive claims. Cite concrete file paths and symbols, PRs, source links, commands, or verification dates where they make the brief auditable. Label inference and remaining uncertainty. Never paste secrets or sensitive payloads into the brief. Resolve facts that the coordinator can discover instead of asking the user to do the research. Stop when more investigation is unlikely to change scope, design, risks, success criteria, staffing, or the decisions requiring user input. The prompt phase is not an unbounded audit. Keep the user informed with concise commentary during longer research. A skill causing research does not suspend the normal expectation for progress updates. ## Write an evidence-backed execution brief For a repository task, write `.scratch/PROMPT-.md` in the relevant worktree or checkout, following its coordination rules. For projectless work, use the host-provided current-task artifact directory when available; otherwise use `work/PROMPT-.md` under the current writable working directory or a user-designated artifact location. Do not depend on a Codex-only home directory in Claude Code. If no writable artifact location is available, present the brief in chat and state that it could not be saved. Generic consent authorizes only writing this brief. Native read-only helpers return evidence in their responses. A separately authorized qualified external review runner may create its documented disposable worktree and captured result artifacts within that exact authorization; no source edits or arbitrary research artifacts are authorized. Every brief needs these core sections: ```markdown # ## Goal ## Context ## Out of scope ## Success criteria ## Open questions ``` Add sections when they materially improve reviewability, for example: - a draft status, date, sources, or parent-work header; - `Research findings` or `Context (verified )`; - `Existing seams` and `Decisions already settled`; - `Proposed design` or `Build`, divided into concrete components or phases; - data, API, event, state, or migration contracts; - security/privacy, failure behavior, risks and mitigations; - rollout, rollback, observability, operations, and QA; - `Task graph and staffing (after sign-off)`. Depth must be proportional to the task. “Concise” means no filler, not artificially short. A focused change may need only the core sections. A cross-system, ambiguous, or security-sensitive feature may require a detailed design and phased build plan. Include enough detail that a fresh executor can act without rediscovering the architecture or making product decisions that belong in the prompt phase. Do not impose a target line count or add irrelevant headings to make a prompt look thorough. Describe concrete behavior: files or seams, contracts, sequencing, failure handling, compatibility, and proof. Avoid vague steps such as “implement the feature” or success criteria such as “works correctly.” Preserve user intent and do not silently broaden the assignment based on discoveries. ## Ask fewer, better questions Only ask questions that remain material after reasonable research and require the user's authority, preference, or information unavailable to the coordinator. Do not ask the user to locate a file, inspect a system, or resolve a fact that the research phase can safely discover. For each open question, when applicable: - explain why the choice matters; - give the viable options or the real tradeoff; - recommend an option and explain why; - state the safe default or blocker if the user does not answer. Record material resolved questions as dated settled decisions. If no genuine questions remain, say so; do not manufacture approval theater. ## Decompose outcomes before choosing agents Map every success criterion to stable task IDs before choosing executors. Use concrete deliverables and implementation seams, not generic phases that hide independent work. Shared architecture is usually a contract prerequisite that unlocks parallel branches. Keep genuinely coupled edits with one owner; do not collapse all downstream work just because it shares initial design decisions. A work breakdown does not require delegation: a tiny task may be one node and one agent. Do not target a task count or model lineup. For multi-part work, read [Task graphs and staffing](references/task-graphs.md) and include the node contracts, outcome coverage, and graph checks it defines. Every node needs an objective, prerequisites, inputs/provenance, concrete output and handoff location, owner, exact executor and task-specific reason, required tools/authority, file boundary when applicable, and acceptance evidence. Compact fields belong in a table; longer contracts can follow or be linked. Show a Mermaid dependency graph for branching work using the same IDs, integration and review gates, and identify the critical dependency chain. A table alone is sufficient for a single node or simple linear task. At planning time, discover the currently available exact model names and their supplied capability descriptions from the originating host's runtime inventory and, when installed, documented lane discovery. Use that current evidence, not a remembered lineup. Include qualified currently available Anthropic/Claude models in the same comparison using their supplied descriptions; brand alone does not imply reviewer suitability. GLM selection is not discretionary: only the fixed `glm-5.3` route may be staffed when explicitly enabled, subject to all existing host, route, authority and task-fit gates. Never add another GLM model or fallback. Descriptions identify candidates; they do not prove task fit or route readiness. For each assignment record a task-specific reason covering relevant reasoning, context needs and known context-window limits, tools, host identity, authority and reviewer independence. Routing is provider/company-neutral: for ordinary work select the least-cost or most-efficient available candidate that credibly meets reasoning, tools, authority, context and quality needs. Honor explicit developer preferences or stated surplus/usage constraints when compatible and record the tradeoff. Use supplied cost/efficiency evidence; label missing cost data unknown, never inspect quotas or invent prices, limits or capabilities. Use the decision rubric in the task graph reference; its model examples are conditional, not a permanent ranking. For each frontier or coordinator execution assignment, explain why an eligible bounded worker is insufficient. An all-frontier plan needs task-specific evidence; generic shared context is insufficient. Do not force model diversity. When capable workers are already staffed, give routine integrated test execution, operator docs, monitoring, cleanup, mechanical edits and repeated evidence gathering to those workers with explicit evidence handoffs. Final integration and acceptance are not catch-all nodes for this routine labor. Keep architecture, authorization, consequential integration judgment and final acceptance with the coordinator, who evaluates the integrated evidence. Tiny tasks need no extra agents. Require an independent second opinion when justified by meaningful uncertainty/non-determinism, high impact or irreversibility, material design disagreement risk, or a specified acceptance gate. State its distinct question and expected value. Do not duplicate work just for provider diversity. The builder's rationale is useful input but is not independent verification. If a preferred model is unavailable before approval, explain the gap and propose an eligible alternative with its task-specific reason. If the lane is required, preserve its readiness prerequisite rather than silently replacing it. After approval, no silent substitution: revise staffing before changing an executor. ## Qualify optional lanes and required dependencies Before choosing external workers, determine whether Governed Side Lane is actually installed. Inspect the current host's skill/plugin inventory for the core `side-lane` skill (its namespace may vary), and read its installed entrypoint. Use documented installed-plugin discovery if the runtime exposes it; do not assume that an unlisted skill is absent when discovery is incomplete. The companion alone, a remembered installation, or a `side-lane` binary on PATH does not prove a configured integration. Record absent, present, or unknown with its source. If optional discovery is unavailable, keep eligible native staffing. Do not install, log in, search unrelated private checkouts, or reconfigure tools. Resolve the runner from that installed core skill's documented path, including symlink-relative resolution. An installed wrapper may intentionally select a local configuration overlay; do not replace it with a vendored runner or a remembered PATH location. Read the installed runner's help as needed, then use its `list` command to enumerate configured exact host/provider/gateway/model/mode routes. Supported providers are not necessarily configured providers, and a listed route is not proof of authentication, task readiness or dispatch consent. Use documented presence-only `check-capabilities` on relevant exact listed routes for the task/repository, and `recommend` for task-relative eligibility. Discover command arguments from installed help; never invent flags. Record host/runtime presence, OAuth or credential **presence**, required capabilities, current task-fit evidence, and exclusions separately. Never retrieve secret values, probe accounts/quotas, invoke a model or start a worker during discovery. | Originating coordinator | Additional routes to inspect if configured | |---|---| | Codex | Native Claude routes on the Claude worker host; fixed `glm-5.3` execute route on the Claude worker host | | Claude | Native Codex/OpenAI routes on the Codex worker host; fixed `glm-5.3` execute route on the Claude worker host | This is a discovery map, not a guaranteed provider list or staffing preference. Keep native in-host agents in the separate runtime inventory. GLM configuration may be recorded even when GLM is not enabled; label it configured/not authorized and exclude it from staffing until explicit enablement and existing run gates are met. GLM has no independent connector identity and never gains review mode. Include a compact inventory in the brief: installed skill/runner source, checked at time, exact candidate route, configuration state, authentication/capability state, task eligibility, authorization, and exclusion reason. Distinguish absent, configured-but-unready, eligible-but-unapproved and approved; do not compress these into an unsupported claim that a provider is available. Probe candidates once per relevant task/mode, then refresh changed or stale evidence before approved dispatch. Keep the originating coordinator and its identity fixed. For an external assignment name the exact worker host, provider/model, gateway when applicable, mode, task/file boundary (a dedicated worktree when required and authorized), and required capabilities. Qualify the worker's identity and capabilities separately from the coordinator's. Configured presence is not proof of readiness: identify what evidence exists, its freshness, and what meaningful bounded check remains. Unknown, stale, or missing qualification excludes immediate dispatch. If a user-required lane is unqualified, plan qualification or repair as a scoped prerequisite with an owner, authority needed, and real acceptance evidence. Do not silently replace that lane with the coordinator. An optional missing lane alone does not block planning: use eligible in-host staffing. Generic Prompt it does not authorize installing or repairing tools, logging in, or running paid qualification. Keep such actions proposed until their authority exists. User preferences never trigger automatic quota detection, fallback, model substitution, or equivalence claims. A route becoming unavailable blocks its nodes and requires a revised staffing decision; unrelated approved work may continue. Never let a worker commit, merge, deploy, alter credentials, or make production changes without explicit user and runtime authority for that action. External output remains untrusted; inspect its diff and rerun relevant checks. The execution staffing table is a proposal, not dispatch authority. Research helpers follow the distinct research authorization above; implementation waits for brief and staffing approval. ## Hand off the researched brief Keep the saved brief canonical; if no writable location exists, the chat brief is canonical until it can be saved. In chat, provide: - a clickable brief path, or the brief itself when it could not be saved; - the one-line goal; - three to seven consequential verified findings or proposed decisions, scaled down when the task is small; - the staffing table with explicit model choices and dependencies; - open questions with recommendations, or state that there are none; - an explicit statement that implementation has not started. Give enough of the findings and design for the user to judge the quality of the research without opening the file, while avoiding a full duplicate of the brief. Then stop. The user must approve both the brief and staffing before implementation edits, implementation worktree/branch creation, or execution-agent dispatch. Previously authorized bounded external review, including its documented disposable worktree and result artifacts, remains governed by its exact scope. ## Proceed only after approval When the user says “go” or otherwise approves the brief and staffing: 1. Reread the saved brief because the user may have edited it; if it could not be saved, use the latest approved chat brief. 2. Reconcile material edits and update staffing before dispatch when needed. 3. Follow applicable repository coordination, impact, safety, and verification rules. 4. Dispatch only nodes whose prerequisite outputs the coordinator has accepted. Respect runtime concurrency and exclusive file/worktree ownership. 5. Require handoffs with source provenance, output location, validation evidence, and unresolved issues. A failed node blocks dependents while unrelated approved branches can continue. Reuse the owning worker for bounded fixes. 6. Retry only within approved route and scope. Material scope or executor changes require a revised staffing decision, with user approval when needed for changed authority. Integrate outputs and verify the complete outcome against success criteria before coordinator acceptance. Approval of the prompt phase does not authorize silent scope expansion or otherwise prohibited external actions.