idd-evaluate-prompt

name	idd-evaluate-prompt
description	Audit an existing prompt for IDD alignment. Scores it across four dimensions (Goal, Requirements, Constraints, Output), identifies gaps, and offers to hand off to the rewrite skill. Use when: "evaluate this prompt", "audit my prompt", "is this IDD", "score my prompt".

Stopping Points

Ask the user to provide the prompt to evaluate:

ask_user_question:
  header: "Prompt"
  question: "Paste the prompt you want to evaluate, or provide a file path."
  type: text
  defaultValue: ""

If a file path is given, read the file. If pasted directly, use as-is.

Optionally ask for context:

ask_user_question:
  header: "Context"
  question: "What does this prompt do? (helps calibrate the evaluation)"
  type: text
  defaultValue: "A cortex exec / CI/CD automation prompt"

---

Evaluation

Score each of the four IDD dimensions from 0–3:

Score	Meaning
0	Absent — not present at all
1	Implicit — hinted at but not stated
2	Partial — present but incomplete or vague
3	Full — explicit, specific, and sufficient

Dimension 1 — Goal (Desired State)

Does the prompt declare what should exist or be true after execution?

• 0: No goal — only "do X" instructions
• 1: Role framing ("You are a reviewer") without desired state
• 2: Vague goal ("find bugs and report them")
• 3: Specific desired state with quality criterion ("surface issues precise enough that a fix agent can act without follow-up")

Dimension 2 — Requirements (Intent Statements)

Are the requirements outcome-focused (what should happen) vs step-by-step (how to do it)?

• 0: No requirements
• 1: Pure procedure ("scan files, create issue, exit")
• 2: Mix of intent and procedure
• 3: Pure intent statements ("one issue per root cause", "body must include file/line/why/expected")

Dimension 3 — Constraints

Does the prompt specify scope limits, safety rules, and what not to do?

• 0: No constraints
• 1: Single vague constraint ("don't add comments")
• 2: Partial constraints (scope defined but safety missing)
• 3: Full constraints (scope + safety + error handling + negative examples)

Dimension 4 — Output (Glass Box)

Does the prompt specify what success looks like including observable evidence?

• 0: No output specification
• 1: Implicit ("create issues") — no format, no summary
• 2: Partial format ("use this title template") but no summary/Glass Box reporting
• 3: Full Glass Box — format + stdout summary + success/failure signals

---

Presenting Results

Show the scores as a table:

Dimension      Score  Notes
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Goal            X/3   <what's there / what's missing>
Requirements    X/3   <what's there / what's missing>
Constraints     X/3   <what's there / what's missing>
Output          X/3   <what's there / what's missing>
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IDD Score      XX/12  <overall assessment>
ICR estimate   ~X     <rough ops-per-intent if inferable>

Classification:

• 0–4: Syntaxist prompt — command relay, low agentic readiness
• 5–8: Transitional — some intent, significant gaps
• 9–12: IDD-compliant — high ICR potential, strong agentic readiness

Then ask:

ask_user_question:
  header: "Next step"
  question: "What would you like to do?"
  options:
    - label: "Rewrite it using IDD"
      description: "Hand off to the rewrite-prompt skill"
    - label: "Just show me what to fix"
      description: "List the specific gaps with examples"
    - label: "Done"