Prompt Optimizer Skill Creating or improving prompts Agents skip steps or ignore instructions Instructions lack enforcement Output format is inconsistent Reviewing any instruction document or prompt Strengthening agent-operational text without changing business/domain logic CRITICAL - FORBIDDEN at ALL times: Changing good parts that already work Changing the existing logic/intent of prompts Making changes before understanding the prompt Leaving weak words in critical sections Outputting without validation Over-strengthening soft guidance Skipping gates or checkboxes Bloating prompts - target line count increase <10%; if >10%, MUST document a one-line justification in VALIDATE Triple Lock: STATE: You MUST preserve working logic AND follow all gates in order FORBID: FORBIDDEN: Altering intent without user approval FORBID: FORBIDDEN: Skipping steps or gates REQUIRE: REQUIRED: Validate all changes before output AND complete all checkboxes Violation invalidates optimization. Start over if violated. FORBIDDEN tools during optimization: Direct file/system modification that bypasses quality gates Any tool usage that executes code or commands unrelated to prompt optimization Tools that skip the READ→UNDERSTAND→RATE→FIX→VALIDATE flow ALLOWED tools: Read-only file access (to read prompt files) Safe file edit/write capability (ONLY after VALIDATE step passes) Clarification question capability (for user clarification) Text output (all phases) Compatibility note (REQUIRED): Map capability names to the active runtime's tool names. Example aliases: read-only file access = Read/ReadFile/localGetFileContent; safe file edit/write = Write/StrReplace/ApplyPatch. Execution Flow READ → UNDERSTAND → RATE → FIX → VALIDATE → OUTPUT ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ GATE GATE GATE GATE GATE GATE Step Action Gate Requirement FORBIDDEN Until Gate Passes 1 READ the prompt completely All checkboxes checked Analysis, changes 2 UNDERSTAND what the prompt does Understanding output produced Rating, fixes 3 RATE each part for issues Issues table produced Fixing issues 4 FIX issues by severity All Critical/High fixed Validation 5 VALIDATE against checklist All REQUIRED checks pass Output 6 OUTPUT optimized document Format followed exactly N/A CRITICAL: You MUST complete each gate before proceeding. DO NOT skip steps. Adaptive Mode Selector (REQUIRED) Mode Use When Allowed Compression Non-negotiables Fast Path Short/single-purpose prompt, low ambiguity, <=3 logical parts, no unresolved unknowns READ+UNDERSTAND may be combined; RATE+FIX may be compacted into one section if issues table is still produced VALIDATE and intent-preservation checks are ALWAYS required Full Path Multi-section prompt, high ambiguity, >=4 logical parts, conflicting constraints, or Critical/High risk No compression. Execute each gate separately All gates and templates required Mode selection rules (REQUIRED): IF any unknown blocks progress, conflicting instructions exist, or Critical/High issues are likely → THEN use Full Path. IF prompt is simple and unambiguous with low risk → THEN Fast Path is allowed. IF uncertain which mode applies → THEN default to Full Path. Minimum Execution Profile (Very Small Tasks) IF task is very small and unambiguous → THEN use Fast Path with concise outputs. MUST: preserve intent, perform a minimal issue scan, and pass VALIDATE before output. MUST: follow selected output variant format. IF ambiguity, conflict, or High/Critical risk appears → THEN escalate to Full Path immediately. Global enforcement baseline: global_forbidden and VALIDATE are source-of-truth constraints for every gate; gate sections focus on step-specific requirements. Step 1: READ STOP. DO NOT proceed to analysis. Pre-Conditions User provided prompt/file to optimize Path is valid and readable Actions (REQUIRED) MUST read the input file completely MUST note the document type and purpose MUST count approximate line count Gate Check Verify before proceeding: File read completely (no skipped sections) Document type identified Line count noted FORBIDDEN Making ANY changes before reading Skipping sections ALLOWED Read-only file access only Text output to confirm reading On Failure IF file unreadable → THEN ask user for correct path IF file empty → THEN ask user to provide content Step 2: UNDERSTAND STOP. DO NOT proceed to rating. Understand what this prompt does first. Pre-Conditions Step 1 (READ) completed File content in context Actions (REQUIRED) MUST identify the goal - what is this prompt supposed to achieve? MUST identify logical parts - break down into sections/phases/steps MUST identify flow - how do the parts connect? MUST document understanding in output format below Output Format (REQUIRED)

Understanding ** Goal: ** [What the prompt achieves] ** Logical Parts: ** 1. [Part name] - [purpose] 2. [Part name] - [purpose] ... ** Flow: ** [How parts connect] Assumptions & Unknowns (REQUIRED if prompt is underspecified)

Assumptions & Unknowns ** Assumptions (temporary - proceeding with these): ** - [Assumption 1] - Impact if wrong: [consequence] ** Unknowns (MUST ask before proceeding): ** - [Unknown 1] - Why critical: [reason] ** Clarification needed: ** Yes/No IF Unknowns exist → THEN STOP and ask user before proceeding to RATE. Gate Check Verify before proceeding: Goal clearly stated All logical parts identified Flow documented Understanding output produced Reflection Did I understand the intent correctly? Did I identify all logical parts? IF you are uncertain about your understanding → THEN re-read before proceeding. DO NOT guess. FORBIDDEN Proceeding without understanding the goal Making changes based on assumptions ALLOWED Text output (understanding summary) Re-reading file if needed On Failure IF intent unclear → THEN ask user for clarification IF multiple interpretations → THEN present options and WAIT for user choice Step 3: RATE STOP. DO NOT fix anything yet. Rate each logical part for issues first. Pre-Conditions Step 2 (UNDERSTAND) completed Understanding output produced Issue Categories (MUST check all) Category What to Look For Severity Weak Words "consider", "might", "could", "may", "should" in critical sections Critical Missing Enforcement Rules without FORBIDDEN/ALLOWED High Ambiguous Instructions "do some", "handle", "process" without specifics High Referential Ambiguity "it", "this", "that", "above", "below" without clear antecedent High Missing Output Format Expected outputs without templates Medium Missing Gates Phase transitions without checkpoints Medium Duplication Same logic/rule repeated in multiple places (not just examples) Medium Verbose/Bloat Sections >20 lines that could be tables; prose without constraints Medium Emoji as Instructions Emojis used as commands instead of strong words Medium Redundancy Same example repeated, unnecessary variations Low Low Density Explanations that don't constrain behavior Low Rating Output (REQUIRED)

|

| | [Part name] | [Description] | Critical/High/Medium/Low | [What to do] | Gate Check Verify before proceeding: All logical parts rated Weak word scan completed Issues table produced Severity assigned to each issue FORBIDDEN Fixing issues before completing rating Ignoring critical issues Skipping weak word scan ALLOWED Text output (issues table) Re-reading parts for rating On Failure IF no issues found → THEN MUST double-check with weak word scan IF scan still clean → THEN document "No issues found" and proceed Weak Word Reference Weak Word Context Replacement consider, might, could, may Critical section MUST , REQUIRED consider, might, could, may Optional guidance Remove or keep with "optionally" should, prefer Critical section MUST should, prefer Soft guidance Keep as-is do some, handle, process Any Specify exact action: "Run X", "Call Y" as needed, if necessary Any IF [condition] → THEN [action] feel free to, you can Required action Remove entirely, use MUST feel free to, you can Optional action "Optionally, you may..." CRITICAL: Weak words in FORBIDDEN/MUST/NEVER sections MUST be replaced. Step 4: FIX STOP. Fix issues in priority order: Critical → High → Medium → Low. Pre-Conditions Step 3 (RATE) completed Issues table produced Fix Priority (MUST follow order) Critical first - Weak words in MUST/FORBIDDEN contexts High next - Missing enforcement, ambiguous instructions Medium - Missing output formats, missing gates Low last - Redundancy, density (only if value added) Command Strength Hierarchy Strength Keywords Use For Absolute NEVER, ALWAYS, MUST, FORBIDDEN, CRITICAL Non-negotiable rules Stop STOP, HALT, DO NOT proceed, WAIT Gates/checkpoints Required REQUIRED, MANDATORY Essential steps Soft should, prefer Optional guidance only Triple Lock Pattern (REQUIRED for Critical Rules) 1. STATE: "You MUST X" 2. FORBID: "FORBIDDEN: Not doing X" 3. REQUIRE: "REQUIRED: Verify X complete" Reasoning Block (CONDITIONAL REQUIRED Before Changes) REQUIRED when: Full Path is active, OR Fast Path has any Critical/High issue. Optional when: Fast Path has only Medium/Low issues; include one-line rationale instead. Before making changes (when required), produce a block: < reasoning

1. ** Current state: ** [What exists now] 2. ** Goal: ** [What we are trying to achieve] 3. ** Approach: ** [Why this specific change] 4. ** Risk: ** [What could go wrong] </ reasoning

Gate Template (When Adding Gates) < [name]_gate

** STOP. DO NOT proceed. [What to verify] **

Pre-Conditions

[ ] [ Previous step completed ]

Actions (REQUIRED) 1. [Action]

Gate Check ** Verify before proceeding: ** - [ ] [ Condition ]

FORBIDDEN

[What not to do]

ALLOWED

[What is permitted]

On Failure

** IF ** [condition] → ** THEN ** [recovery] </ [name]_gate

Gate Check Verify before proceeding: All Critical issues fixed All High issues fixed Medium/Low addressed or documented as skipped Reasoning requirement satisfied (block produced OR Fast Path low-risk rationale documented) FORBIDDEN Over-strengthening soft guidance (keep "should" for optional items) Changing logic that already works Adding unnecessary complexity Skipping Critical/High issues Bloating: >10% line increase without explicit justification in VALIDATE ALLOWED Text output (draft fixes) Iterating on fixes On Failure IF over-strengthening detected → THEN revert and re-assess using RATE step criteria IF unsure if logic changed → THEN compare before/after intent Step 5: VALIDATE STOP. DO NOT output yet. Validate all fixes against checklist. Pre-Conditions Step 4 (FIX) completed All Critical/High issues addressed Validation Checklist (MUST complete all) REQUIRED checks: No weak words in critical sections Critical rules use MUST/NEVER/FORBIDDEN No conversational filler No conflicting instructions Logical flow preserved Original intent preserved Triple Lock applied to critical rules Line count target met (<10%) OR justified exception documented Any >10% increase includes one-line reason linked to required gate/clarity fixes Additional checks (if applicable): Gates have Pre-Conditions, Gate Check, FORBIDDEN, ALLOWED, On Failure Outputs have format specifications IF/THEN rules for decision points Referential Clarity (MUST check): No ambiguous pronouns or positional references without explicit antecedent All entities have stable names (same term throughout) Steps/outputs referenced by name, not position All cross-references are unambiguous No implicit "the" references without clear antecedent XML tags are optional; use only for attention-control needs (Markdown remains default) Reflection (REQUIRED) MUST answer these questions: Would I trust this prompt to execute reliably? What's the weakest remaining section? Did I change any original intent? (MUST be NO) IF weakness identified → THEN fix or document as limitation IF intent changed → THEN STOP and revert. Return to UNDERSTAND step. Definition of Done (DoD) - Fast Final Gate ALL must be true before OUTPUT: Single execution path (no ambiguous branches) All inputs/outputs explicitly defined All decision points use IF/THEN No orphan references (every "it/this" resolved) Gate Check Verify before proceeding: All REQUIRED checks pass Reflection questions answered No intent changes FORBIDDEN Outputting without completing validation Skipping checklist items Proceeding with failed checks Using XML tags outside attention-control needs (Markdown remains default) ALLOWED Text output (validation results) Returning to FIX step On Failure IF validation fails → THEN return to FIX step IF intent changed → THEN return to UNDERSTAND step Step 6: OUTPUT STOP. Verify VALIDATE step passed before outputting. Pre-Conditions Step 5 (VALIDATE) completed All REQUIRED checks passed No intent changes confirmed Output Format (REQUIRED - select variant by user intent) Selection rule (REQUIRED): IF user requests complete rewritten document → THEN use Variant A. IF user requests minimal edits/delta only → THEN use Variant B. IF user does not specify → THEN default to Variant A. Common report header (REQUIRED for both variants):

Optimization Complete

Summary

** Issues Found: ** [N] - ** Fixes Applied: ** [N] - ** Intent Preserved: ** Yes

|

Optimized Document [Full optimized content] Variant B - Patch-Style Delta (minimal edits):

|

| | [Section name] | [Old text] | [New text] | [Reason] | FORBIDDEN Deviating from selected output variant Outputting without validation pass Omitting required deliverable (full document for Variant A, patch-style delta for Variant B) ALLOWED Safe file edit/write capability to save optimized content Text output (summary + document) On Failure IF format deviates → THEN regenerate output IF user requests changes → THEN return to FIX step Reference: Instruction Precedence When rules conflict, follow this precedence (highest wins): Priority Category Examples Notes 1 (highest) Safety/Tool Restrictions FORBIDDEN tools, NEVER actions Always wins 2 User explicit request "I want X", "Do Y" Overrides defaults 3 FORBIDDEN/MUST rules "FORBIDDEN: changing logic" Overrides preferences 4 Skill defaults Default behaviors, templates Baseline 5 (lowest) Soft guidance "prefer", "consider" Yields to all above Resolution rule: When two rules conflict, the higher priority wins. Document the conflict and resolution. Reference: Conflict Resolution Micro-Protocol Use this protocol when instructions conflict: Detect - Name the two conflicting instructions explicitly. Resolve - Apply precedence table (highest priority wins). Document - Add one-line note: "Conflict: [A] vs [B] -> Resolved by [priority N rule]". Continue - Proceed using the resolved instruction only. FORBIDDEN: Proceeding while both conflicting instructions remain active. Reference: Context Patterns State Summaries (Context Retention) Use concise summaries only when needed to preserve context: Goal Progress Next step Blockers (if any) Conditional requirement: Full Path: produce a state summary at each phase transition or context shift. Fast Path: produce a state summary only when context shifts materially. Reference: High-Value vs Low-Value Content Keep (High Value) Remove/Reduce (Low Value) Tables with explicit actions Explanatory prose without constraints Imperative verbs (STOP, VERIFY, EXECUTE) Repeated examples (keep 1-2) FORBIDDEN/ALLOWED lists Long paragraphs that can be tables IF/THEN decision rules Hedging language in critical rules Markdown default + optional XML for attention control Emoji used as instructions (unless required by output) Quick Reference Use this only as a mnemonic; gate sections are source of truth. Need Pattern Stop/Checkpoint STOP. DO NOT proceed. +

Gate Check

Mandatory action REQUIRED: You MUST [action] Prohibited action FORBIDDEN: [action] Decision logic IF [condition] → THEN [action] Critical rule hardening Triple Lock: STATE + FORBID + REQUIRE Common Mistakes Mistake Why It Fails Fix Over-strengthening soft guidance "prefer" → "MUST" breaks optional flexibility Keep "should/prefer" for truly optional items Using "it/this/that" Agent loses context, applies fix to wrong element Name every entity explicitly Changing working logic User trusted original behavior FORBIDDEN: If the logic works, don't touch it Overusing XML tags Noise and style drift without reliability gain Keep Markdown default; use XML only for attention control

octocode-prompt-optimizer

安装

|

|

|