| name | delegation-prompt-crafter |
| description | Transform clarified user requests into structured delegation prompts optimized for specialist agents (cto-architect, strategic-cto-mentor, cv-ml-architect). Use after clarification is complete, before routing to specialist agents. Ensures agents receive complete context for effective work. |
Delegation Prompt Crafter
Creates structured, context-rich prompts for specialist agents that maximize their effectiveness and minimize back-and-forth.
When to Use
- After clarification-protocol has resolved ambiguities
- When routing to cto-architect for design work
- When routing to strategic-cto-mentor for validation
- When routing to cv-ml-architect for ML-specific architecture
- For any handoff between agents in a workflow
Why This Matters
Specialist agents work best with:
- Clear context: Business goals, constraints, current state
- Specific task: Exactly what deliverable is expected
- Structured requirements: Must-haves vs nice-to-haves
- Quality criteria: How to evaluate success
Without this structure, agents may:
- Ask redundant questions (wasting time)
- Solve the wrong problem (misunderstanding context)
- Over-engineer or under-engineer (missing constraints)
- Produce outputs in wrong format (unclear expectations)
Delegation Prompt Structure
Every delegation prompt follows this format:
## CONTEXT
### Business Goal
[What business outcome this serves]
### Current State
[Relevant existing systems, constraints, decisions]
### Key Constraints
- [Constraint 1: e.g., "Budget: < $10K/month infrastructure"]
- [Constraint 2: e.g., "Timeline: MVP in 8 weeks"]
- [Constraint 3: e.g., "Team: 3 senior engineers, Python/React expertise"]
### Background Information
[Any relevant context from clarification or previous agents]
---
## TASK
### Primary Deliverable
[Exactly what output is expected]
### Format Requirements
[Structure, sections, level of detail expected]
### Scope Boundaries
- **In scope**: [What to cover]
- **Out of scope**: [What to explicitly exclude]
---
## REQUIREMENTS
### Must-Haves
- [Critical requirement 1]
- [Critical requirement 2]
### Nice-to-Haves
- [Optional enhancement 1]
- [Optional enhancement 2]
### Quality Criteria
- [Criterion 1: e.g., "Architecture must support 10x growth"]
- [Criterion 2: e.g., "Trade-offs explicitly documented"]
### Integration Points
- [What this output feeds into: e.g., "Will be validated by strategic-cto-mentor"]
- [What depends on this: e.g., "Development team will implement from this"]
---
## ADDITIONAL CONTEXT
[Any other relevant information, links to documentation, previous decisions, etc.]
Agent-Specific Templates
See the prompt-templates folder for pre-built templates:
Crafting Guidelines
Context Section
Business Goal: Be specific about outcomes, not activities
- Bad: "Build a notification system"
- Good: "Enable real-time alerts so users act on time-sensitive events, reducing missed opportunities by 50%"
Current State: Include what exists and what's working
- Existing architecture and tech stack
- Pain points with current solution
- Previous attempts and why they failed
- Existing integrations that must be preserved
Constraints: Be explicit about non-negotiables
- Budget (infrastructure and development)
- Timeline (deadlines, milestones)
- Team (size, skills, availability)
- Technical (must-use technologies, compliance)
- Political (stakeholder preferences, past decisions)
Task Section
Primary Deliverable: One clear output
- Bad: "Help us with the architecture"
- Good: "Provide a system architecture design document with component diagrams, data flow, and technology recommendations"
Format Requirements: Specify structure
- "7-section architecture document per standard format"
- "Executive summary (2 pages max) + detailed appendix"
- "Focus on Phase 1 MVP, with notes on Phase 2 considerations"
Scope Boundaries: Prevent scope creep
- Explicitly state what's NOT included
- Call out decisions already made
- Identify what other agents will handle
Requirements Section
Must-Haves vs Nice-to-Haves: Force prioritization
- Must-haves are blocking—solution fails without them
- Nice-to-haves are enhancements—can be deferred
Quality Criteria: Measurable success
- "Latency < 200ms at p95"
- "Support 100K concurrent users"
- "Cost < $5K/month at launch scale"
Integration Points: Connect the workflow
- What happens after this agent finishes?
- Who consumes this output?
- What format do downstream consumers need?
Common Mistakes to Avoid
1. The Information Dump
Bad: Copying entire conversation history into delegation
Good: Distill to relevant context only
2. The Vague Task
Bad: "Design a good system"
Good: "Design a notification system architecture that supports 100K users, uses our existing PostgreSQL database, and costs < $2K/month"
3. The Missing Constraints
Bad: Letting agent assume unlimited budget/time
Good: Explicitly stating constraints, even if flexible
4. The Forgotten Handoff
Bad: No mention of what happens next
Good: "This design will be validated by strategic-cto-mentor before implementation begins"
Output Examples
Example 1: Architecture Delegation
## CONTEXT
### Business Goal
Enable customers to receive real-time notifications for order status changes, reducing support tickets about "where's my order" by 60%.
### Current State
- Monolithic Node.js backend, PostgreSQL database
- Notifications currently sent via email batch (hourly)
- 50K active users, expecting 200K in 12 months
- Mobile app (React Native) and web app (React)
### Key Constraints
- Budget: < $3K/month additional infrastructure
- Timeline: MVP in 6 weeks, full rollout in 10 weeks
- Team: 2 backend engineers, 1 mobile engineer
- Must integrate with existing authentication system
### Background Information
User research shows 73% of support tickets are order status questions. Push notifications tested well in user interviews.
---
## TASK
### Primary Deliverable
System architecture design for real-time notification system
### Format Requirements
Standard 7-section architecture document:
1. Executive Summary
2. System Architecture (with diagrams)
3. Technology Stack Justification
4. Implementation Roadmap
5. Risk Assessment
6. Code Examples (WebSocket integration)
7. Deployment Strategy
### Scope Boundaries
- **In scope**: Backend notification service, mobile push integration, delivery tracking
- **Out of scope**: Email notifications (keep existing), SMS notifications (Phase 2)
---
## REQUIREMENTS
### Must-Haves
- Real-time delivery (< 5 second latency)
- Support for 200K users with 20% daily active
- Push notifications on iOS and Android
- Fallback to email if push fails
### Nice-to-Haves
- Notification preferences per user
- Read receipts / delivery confirmation
- Rich notifications with images
### Quality Criteria
- p95 latency < 5 seconds from event to notification
- 99.9% delivery success rate
- Infrastructure cost < $3K/month at 200K users
### Integration Points
- Will be validated by strategic-cto-mentor before implementation
- Development team will implement from this architecture
- Must integrate with existing user service for preferences
---
## ADDITIONAL CONTEXT
Previous attempt at WebSockets failed due to connection management complexity. Team prefers managed solutions where possible. AWS is our cloud provider.
Validation Checklist
Before sending delegation prompt, verify:
References
