| 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"
