Prompt creator
Skill fabioc-aloha/Alex_ACT_Edition/.github/skills/prompt-creator
ACT-Edition brain template for AI coding assistants — critical thinking, epistemic calibration, and structured reasoning
npx -y skills add fabioc-aloha/Alex_ACT_Edition --skill prompt-creatorAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Create prompts that pass prompt-review's five gates by construction — intent capture, slash-command naming, single-workflow scope, draft as numbered steps, dogfood self-review. Use when authoring a new prompt, refactoring an existing one, or promoting a Mall prompt into the heir's brain.
SKILL.md
6.7 KB, ~1.6k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Prompt Creator
Author prompts that pass prompt-review's five gates by construction. The gates are the quality bar; invert them, and you build to standard the first time.
Mirrors skill-creator's seven-phase structure with prompt-specific guidance. If a phase here disagrees with skill-creator on the shared scaffold, skill-creator wins; this file owns only the per-type guidance.
When to Use
- Authoring a new prompt in
.github/prompts/ - Refactoring an existing prompt (rename, scope tighten, step revision)
- Promoting a Mall prompt into your heir's brain
When not to use
- Authoring a skill (the procedure body) → use skill-creator. Prompts are entry-points; skills are bodies.
- Authoring an instruction (always-on or pattern-applied rule) → use instruction-creator
- Authoring an agent (delegated sub-process role) → use agent-creator
The Seven Phases
Each phase inverts one of the five gates. Author against the phase, pass the gate.
Phase 1 — Intent capture
Answer in writing before any drafting:
- What workflow does this kick off? One sentence. If it contains "and" / "+", you have two prompts — split.
- What slash-command does the user type? The filename (minus
.prompt.md) becomes/<name>. Pick something a user would intuitively type./review-instructiongood;/v2-thing-dobad. - What skill does this prompt invoke? Most prompts are thin wrappers that call a skill. If the answer is "no skill, the prompt carries the workflow", stop — author the skill first, then the prompt.
Phase 2 — Prior-art scan
Get-ChildItem .github/prompts/*.prompt.md
Select-String -Path .github/prompts/*.prompt.md -Pattern "<keyword>"
If another prompt covers the same workflow, extend it. If a Mall prompt covers it, adopt.
Phase 3 — Draft against Gate 1 (Spec)
Frontmatter template:
---
description: "<third-person, what + when to invoke, ≤1024 chars>"
lastReviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
---
Do NOT add mode: agent — per current Microsoft Learn prompt-files spec, this field is deprecated. Existing prompts may carry it during sweep transition; new prompts should not.
File location: .github/prompts/<kebab-name>.prompt.md (flat — no subfolders).
Slash-picker discoverability: the filename IS the user's typing surface. After you pick a name, mentally type /<name> and ask: would a user trying to find this workflow guess that string? If not, rename.
Phase 4 — Draft against Gate 2 (Quality)
| Criterion | How you author for it |
|---|---|
| Imperative voice | Verbs in the imperative ("Run", "Read", "Apply", "Save"). |
| Numbered steps | The prompt's body is a numbered step list. Brief context paragraph allowed before the steps; nothing else. |
| Single workflow scope | One goal. No "menus" of unrelated commands. |
| ≤100 lines | If you need more, the workflow belongs in a skill the prompt invokes. |
| Falsifier | Prompts <30 lines may inline a one-line falsifier; longer prompts need an explicit ## Would Revise If section. |
Template structure:
---
description: "..."
lastReviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
---
# /<prompt-name>
<one-paragraph context: what skill this invokes, what the user gets>
Steps:
1. <imperative action>
2. <imperative action>
3. <imperative action>
<optional: conditions / branches / output format>
Phase 5 — Draft against Gate 3 (Scope)
| Target | Route |
|---|---|
| Generic developer workflow (status, save-note, banner) | Heir baseline |
| Project-specific workflow | That project's local-only repo |
| External-surface command | Not an ACT prompt — author a Mall unit |
Workflow vs body distinction: the prompt invokes the skill; the skill carries the procedure. If your prompt body has more than ~10 numbered steps, it's drifting into skill territory.
Phase 6 — Draft against Gate 4 (Safety)
Same checks as skill-creator Phase 6. Prompt-specific: if the workflow invokes destructive operations (force-push, drop, delete), the step list must include an explicit user-confirmation step before the destructive call.
Phase 7 — Dogfood self-audit
Before committing, run prompt-review's five gates. Verdict lives in the commit message.
Slash-picker test: imagine the prompt appears in a picker alongside your existing prompts. Is it discoverable by name? Does the description make its purpose obvious?
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-pattern | Correction |
|---|---|
| Authoring a prompt before its underlying skill exists | Author the skill first; the prompt is the entry-point |
Adding mode: agent to a new prompt | Deprecated per Microsoft Learn spec. Drop it. |
| Bundling unrelated commands into a "menu" prompt | One workflow per prompt |
| Cryptic prompt name | Filename = typing surface. If a user can't guess /<name>, rename. |
| Letting the prompt body grow into a procedure | If you need more than ~10 steps, the workflow belongs in a skill |
Referencing a retired skill in Steps: | Gate 5 semantic failure. Check that step references resolve. |
Falsifiability
This skill's design has failed if any of the following occur within 90 days:
- ≥2 prompts authored using this guide fail
prompt-reviewon first self-audit - No new prompts authored via this guide in 90 days (decorative — sunset)
- Slash-picker discoverability check produces consistent miscalibration (cryptic names accepted, or obvious names rejected) ≥3 times in a quarter
Track as you would any falsified discipline (commit log, retraining notes, or curation ledger if your repo ships one) tagged [PROMPT-CREATOR-MISS].
Related
- prompt-review — the five gates this skill inverts
- skill-creator — sibling for skills; canonical seven-phase scaffold
- instruction-creator — sibling for instructions
- agent-creator — sibling for agents
- act-pass — required for medium-stakes prompt authoring
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most prompt engineering skills give in ~1.6k tokens
Counted across 563 of the 626 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06
- ask at most three clarifying questionsin 22 of 563, across 15 files
- respond in the user input languagein 14 of 563, across 9 files
- preserve the original intentin 13 of 563, across 11 files
- Establish baseline metrics and collect representative examplesin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- Identify failure modes and prioritize high-impact fixesin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- Apply prompt and workflow improvements with measurable goalsin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- Roll back quickly if quality or safety metrics regressin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- validate changes with tests and roll out in controlled stagesin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- generate quantitative baseline performance reportsin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- create representative test scenariosin 12 of 563, across 2 files
- treat prompts as codein 12 of 563, across 5 files
- test prompts on diverse inputsin 12 of 563, across 8 files
Said here and by no other author read
- write down the workflow intent before drafting
- split prompts that contain multiple workflows
- scan existing prompts before authoring
- extend existing prompts that cover the same workflow
- author the underlying skill before the prompt
- use imperative voice for numbered steps
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.