| name | ccc-prompt-fix |
| description | Fix and sharpen a prompt. Diagnoses it against the 6 prompt-quality patterns, returns a tightened rewrite with the reasoning, and suggests the right library prompt for your task. |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","AskUserQuestion"] |
| argument-hint | [<your prompt> | last | for <task> | score <prompt>] |
/ccc-prompt-fix — Auto Prompt Fixer
Take a rough prompt and hand back a sharper one — with the why, so you learn the pattern instead of just copying the fix. Grounded in the Claude Code prompt library (skills/claude-code-library/): 52 field-tested prompts + the 6 patterns behind all of them.
This is a coach, not a black box. Every rewrite names which pattern it applied, so the next prompt you write yourself is already better.
Modes
| You type | It does |
|---|
/ccc-prompt-fix <your prompt> | Fix — diagnose + rewrite that prompt |
/ccc-prompt-fix last | Fix the last prompt you sent this session (read from the transcript) |
/ccc-prompt-fix for <task> | Suggest — pull the best matching prompt from the library for that task |
/ccc-prompt-fix score <prompt> | Score — rate 0–6 on the patterns, no rewrite (quick gut-check) |
/ccc-prompt-fix (no args) | Ask (via AskUserQuestion) which of the above you want |
The rubric — the 6 patterns (from the library)
Diagnose every prompt against these. A missing pattern is a fix opportunity; not every prompt needs all six, but each absent one is a question to ask.
- Outcome, not steps — says what, lets Claude find the how. ❌ "open X, change Y, then Z" ✅ "add rate limiting to the public API; keep existing tests green"
- A way to check its own work — includes run/test/compare/verify so it iterates instead of stopping at looks done. ✅ "write the migration, run it against dev, confirm the schema matches"
- A reference to match — names an existing file/test/pattern. ✅ "add a settings page following the profile page's layout"
- A measurable target — metric + threshold so "done" is unambiguous. ✅ "get the bundle under 200KB and show me what you cut"
- The artifact, pasted — errors/logs/screenshots or
@file instead of description. ✅ "why is the build failing? @build.log"
- How to answer — format, length, audience. ✅ "explain the retry logic as an HTML page with a diagram, then open it"
The through-line: once a prompt works, make it repeatable — save it as a skill//command, record it in CLAUDE.md, or enforce it with a hook. The fixer says so when a prompt looks reusable.
How it works (the FIX flow)
- Read the target prompt (arg, or the last user turn for
last).
- Diagnose — mark each of the 6 patterns present ✅ / absent ⬜. Absent ≠ always wrong — judge which ones this task actually needs.
- Rewrite — produce a tightened version that adds the load-bearing missing patterns, without bloating (a fix that doubles the length isn't a fix).
- Explain — one line per pattern you added, so the reasoning transfers.
- Offer to make it stick — if the prompt is one you'll reuse, offer
/ccc-claudemd (record the convention) or a /command skill.
Output format
🔧 Prompt fix
Original:
"<verbatim>"
Diagnosis (6 patterns):
✅ outcome ⬜ self-check ✅ reference ⬜ measurable ⬜ artifact ⬜ format
Sharper:
"<the rewrite>"
Why:
+ self-check: added "run the tests and confirm they pass" so it closes its own loop
+ measurable: pinned "p95 under 200ms" so "done" is unambiguous
💡 Reusable? Save as a /command or record in CLAUDE.md (via /ccc-claudemd).
For suggest mode, return the matching library prompt verbatim + its why it works note (cite the SDLC phase). For score mode, return just the 0–6 tally + the single highest-leverage missing pattern.
When NOT to use
- The prompt is already tight and the task is trivial — don't gold-plate a one-liner.
- You want the automatic nudge on every turn — that's the suggest engine's job; this is the on-demand deep pass.
Grounding & honesty
- The rubric and catalog come from
skills/claude-code-library/ (adapted from Anthropic's published, copy-paste-intended Claude Code docs). If a rewrite is ever uncertain, show the diagnosis and ask rather than inventing a target the user didn't give — a fabricated "measurable target" is worse than an absent one (Pillar 4).
- Never silently change the user's intent. The rewrite preserves what they asked for; it only makes it checkable and precise.
⚙️ Fable contract: plan before build · verifier ≠ worker · prove before alarm · loops need gates · leave durable state — rules/fable-method.md
