| name | meta-prompting |
| class | meta |
| description | Structured reasoning modifiers (/think, /verify, /adversarial, /edge, /confidence, /assumptions, etc.) to stress-test decisions, surface assumptions, or enumerate edge cases. Use when validating an important design, architecture decision, or ambiguous plan before committing. |
Meta-Prompting
Enhanced reasoning via /commands or natural language. Commands combine left-to-right: /verify /adversarial. Auto-trigger when context warrants -- note which pattern applied. Output: apply the pattern inline, then mark the result (e.g., VERIFIED ANSWER:, REVISED ANSWER:, confidence tier).
Patterns
/think | /show -- Show reasoning step-by-step: decision points, alternatives considered, why each accepted/rejected. With /think doubt: after each step, flag what could be wrong and why before proceeding.
/adversarial | /argue -- After answering, steelman the opposing case. 3 strongest counterarguments ranked by severity. Identify blind spots and unstated assumptions.
/constrain | /strict -- Tight constraints: 3 sentences max, cite sources, no hedging. Override inline: /constrain 5 sentences.
/json | /format -- Respond in valid JSON code block, no surrounding prose unless asked. Default schema:
{"analysis": "string", "confidence_score": 85, "methodology": "string", "limitations": ["string"]}
Custom keys: /json {keys: summary, risks, recommendation}
/budget | /deep -- Extended thinking space (~500 words) showing dead ends and reasoning pivots, then clearly separated final answer.
/compare | /vs -- Compare options as table. Default dimensions: speed, accuracy, cost, complexity, maintenance. Custom: /compare [dim1, dim2].
/confidence | /conf -- Rate each claim 0-100. Flag below 70 as SPECULATIVE. Group by tier: HIGH (85+), MEDIUM (70-84), LOW (<70). Include assumptions made and rate each 1-10 on confidence.
/edge | /break -- 5+ inputs/scenarios that break the approach. Code: null/empty, concurrency, overflow, encoding, auth bypass. Strategies: market conditions, timing, dependencies.
Auto-triggers on: security, validation, parsing contexts.
/verify-think | /check -- Three phases: (1) Answer direct response, (2) Challenge 3 ways it could be wrong, (3) Verify investigate each, update if needed. Mark final as VERIFIED ANSWER: or REVISED ANSWER:. Distinct from the /ia-verify slash command, which runs the full pre-PR verification pipeline.
Auto-triggers on: architecture decisions, critical choices, "Am I right?"
/flip | /alt -- Identify the approach you'd take by default and state it. Then propose an alternative that uses a different mechanism (different data structure, different layer, different abstraction). State the conditions under which the alternative beats the default. Override: /flip 3 for top 3 alternatives.
Auto-triggers on: architecture decisions where the "easy" answer may break at scale.
/assumptions | /presume -- Before answering, list every implicit assumption in the question/task. Then answer with assumptions explicit. The assumption list is often more valuable than the answer.
Auto-triggers on: architecture reviews, ambiguous requirements.
/premortem | /postmortem -- Assume the decision/project has already failed. Work backwards: what caused the failure? List 3-5 failure modes by likelihood. Focus on systemic risks, not edge cases.
/blindspot | /unknowns -- For unfamiliar territory (new codebase area, new domain, unfamiliar craft). Surface the user's unknown unknowns: what they'd need to know to prompt well but don't know to ask. Search the codebase/docs first, then report (1) the questions they should be asking, (2) prior art, conventions, and landmines in this area, (3) what "good" looks like here. Goal is to teach enough to prompt better, not to solve the task. Distinct from /adversarial (attacks a proposed answer) and /premortem (assumes the plan failed) -- this runs before an answer exists, aimed at the user's knowledge gaps, not the solution's.
Auto-triggers on: "I know nothing about X", "blindspot pass", "unknown unknowns", entering an unfamiliar area.
/tensions | /perspectives -- Answer from two named opposing perspectives (e.g., security engineer vs. shipping PM). Focus output on where they disagree -- that's where the real insight lives. Override roles: /tensions [devops, security].
Combos
/analyze = /think + /edge + /verify-think -- Code reviews, architecture, security-sensitive work. Synthesize findings into a unified recommendation -- don't just concatenate pattern outputs.
Auto-triggers on: code review requests.
/trade = /confidence + /adversarial + /edge -- Trade ideas, position analysis, market thesis.
Auto-triggers on: trade/position discussions.
Conventions
- Separate combined pattern outputs with
---
- Keep core answer prominent -- patterns enhance, not bury the response
- Accept new pattern definitions mid-conversation ("Add
/eli5 for explain like I'm 5") -- apply for the session
Verify
- Pattern marker present in output (e.g.,
VERIFIED ANSWER: for /verify)
- Core answer appears before any pattern-output separator (
---)
