ccc-prompt-fix

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.

1. 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"
2. 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"
3. A reference to match — names an existing file/test/pattern. ✅ "add a settings page following the profile page's layout"
4. A measurable target — metric + threshold so "done" is unambiguous. ✅ "get the bundle under 200KB and show me what you cut"
5. The artifact, pasted — errors/logs/screenshots or @file instead of description. ✅ "why is the build failing? @build.log"
6. 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)

1. Read the target prompt (arg, or the last user turn for last).
2. Diagnose — mark each of the 6 patterns present ✅ / absent ⬜. Absent ≠ always wrong — judge which ones this task actually needs.
3. Rewrite — produce a tightened version that adds the load-bearing missing patterns, without bloating (a fix that doubles the length isn't a fix).
4. Explain — one line per pattern you added, so the reasoning transfers.
5. 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