Prompt Template Generator
Turn any codebase into a tailored prompt cookbook: a single Markdown file of
copy-paste-ready prompts (session kickoff, per-subsystem tasks, testing, bug
fixes, optimization, deploy, feature/architecture/hotfix) where the project's
real stack, paths, subsystems, and conventions are already filled in. The
user copies a block, fills a couple of [BRACKETS], and pastes it into Claude,
Claude Code, or Cursor to start a task with full context loaded.
This generalizes the hand-built "prompt template" documents developers make for a single project — but produced automatically for any project from its files.
The one idea that matters
Every template has two kinds of slots:
- Filled by you, from the analysis — facts true for the whole project: name, stack, real source paths, subsystem names, test command, CI/deploy tooling, file-size/style conventions, the doc files that actually exist, and any standing user communication preferences. The user must never retype these.
- Left as
[BRACKETS]— per-task blanks: the specific feature, file, error message, component, or metric.
A generic template leaves everything bracketed. This skill's output is valuable
precisely because it already knows the project. If you ever write [PROJECT_NAME]
or [TECH_STACK] into the output, stop — you have that fact; fill it in.
Workflow
Work in clear phases.
Phase 1 — Locate the project
Find the project root. It's usually an uploaded folder, a path the user names, a repo in the working directory, or (if the user is vague) ask which directory. You need the files on disk, not just a description.
Phase 2 — Analyze
Run the inventory script:
python scripts/analyze_project.py <project_root>
It prints a summary and writes .prompt-template-analysis.json with: project
name, ecosystems, source root, subsystems (immediate source subdirs, with
code-file counts — these become document sections), test setup, CI/Docker,
signal files, and parsed conventions (e.g. file-size limits).
Then read the high-signal files by hand to enrich the skeleton —
README, AGENTS.md/.cursorrules, ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING docs, CI workflows. See
references/analysis-guide.md for what each ecosystem's directories mean and
how to map them to natural task templates (it covers Node/TS, Python,
Salesforce/sfdx, monorepos, and thin-detection fallbacks).
Phase 3 — Generate the document
Follow references/document-structure.md exactly — it specifies section order,
per-section templates, and the filled-vs-bracketed convention. In short:
# 🎯 [name] — Prompt Templates (+ one-line description)
## 📋 How to use this
## 🚀 Quick Start (session kickoff + resume)
## 🧩 <one section per detected subsystem, with 2–4 task templates each>
## 🧪 Testing
## 🐛 Bug Fixes
## 🔧 Optimization & Refactor
## 🚀 Build & Deploy (only if CI/Docker/deploy detected)
## 🎯 Cross-Cutting Scenarios (new feature / architecture decision / hotfix)
## 📝 Project Conventions Cheat-Sheet
Map each detected subsystem to the tasks natural to it (a UI dir gets component +
accessibility templates; an Apex classes/ dir gets service-class-plus-tests
templates; etc.). Hard-code real paths and real conventions into every template.
Keep code blocks copyable; use four-backtick outer fences for templates that
contain their own fenced sub-block (logs, errors). Favor a focused cookbook over
an exhaustive one.
Phase 4 — Save and present
Write the file as PROMPT-TEMPLATES.md in the project root (or a name/location
the user prefers). If the present_files tool is available, present it. Then
give a 2–3 line summary of what got generated (which subsystems became sections,
which conventions were baked in) and invite tweaks.
Quality bar
- Every project-wide fact is filled in; only per-task slots stay bracketed.
- Sections reflect the actual subsystems — no invented ones, no forced symmetry. Two honest templates beat four padded ones.
- Real paths, real test command, real conventions appear verbatim.
- Standing user preferences (if known) are baked into Quick Start + cheat-sheet, never invented.
Files
scripts/analyze_project.py— pure-stdlib project inventory → JSON. Run first.references/document-structure.md— the output blueprint. Read before writing.references/analysis-guide.md— how to interpret the inventory per ecosystem.
Next steps: After delivery, suggest drift-check to audit the generated
cookbook against the project's existing AGENTS.md, README, and any
PLANNING docs — that's where copy-paste consensus and stale convention
references usually hide. Suggest reality-check if you baked in command names,
package versions, or "best-practice" patterns that the user should verify
before relying on them. Skip the suggestion if they just wanted the file and
nothing else.