菜单
Optimize prompts for code-related tasks following Claude best practices. Use when refining prompts for implementation, debugging, refactoring, code review, or testing.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Create Claude Code skills with best practices, structure, validation, and testing. Use when designing or refining skills, prompts, references, or supporting files.
Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.
Use when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: "brainstorm this", "I have an idea for...", "help me think through this project", "what should I build", "spec this out". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review strategy docs, or run strategy interviews — produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.
Use when the user wants to pressure-test a product, internal-tool, or OSS concept against Amazon's Working Backwards PRFAQ gauntlet before committing to a spec. Triggers on: "work backwards", "write a PRFAQ", "press release first", "is this idea worth building", "pressure-test this concept", "filter this before brainstorm", "is this a real product". Also catches solution-first pitches ("I want to build X that does Y") and technology-first pitches ("use AI to...") that need customer-first filtering. Produces a binary pass/fail verdict, not a polished doc. Hardcore coaching — direct, skeptical, concrete. On pass, hands off to brainstorm-beagle with a concept brief. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, scaffold projects, or draft specs.
Use when the user wants web research: gathering cited, multi-angle evidence on a specific question. Triggers on: "research X for me", "do web research on", "look up sources for", "find citations for", "gather evidence on", "what does the web say about X". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), local file search, LLM-as-judge evaluation, or paywalled/auth-gated scraping. Produces a written plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.
generate release notes for changes since a given tag
| name | prompt-improver |
| description | Optimize prompts for code-related tasks following Claude best practices. Use when refining prompts for implementation, debugging, refactoring, code review, or testing. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Optimize code-related prompts for clarity, investigation-first thinking, and verification.
$ARGUMENTS
Evaluate the input prompt across these dimensions:
| Dimension | What to check |
|---|---|
| Task Clarity | Is the task type clear? (implement, fix, refactor, review, test) Are boundaries defined? |
| Investigation | Does it specify reading/understanding before acting? |
| Verification | Are there appropriate checks? (run tests, build, lint) |
| Context Anchoring | Does it reference specific files, functions, or patterns? |
| Action Specificity | Is the desired outcome explicit? Quality expectations stated? |
| Scope Control | Is it appropriately scoped? Clear stopping points? |
Identify which dimensions are weak or missing in the input prompt.
Original: "fix the login bug"
Optimized:
Fix the login bug. First, read the authentication-related files to understand
the current implementation. Reproduce the bug to confirm the issue. Identify
the root cause before making changes. Implement the fix and run existing tests
to verify no regressions.
Original: "add dark mode"
Optimized:
Implement dark mode for the application. First, check how theming/styling is
currently handled in the codebase. Look for existing color variables or theme
patterns. Implement the toggle and theme switching with minimal changes to
existing components. Run tests and verify the UI renders correctly in both modes.
Original: "clean up the user service"
Optimized:
Refactor the user service for improved maintainability. Read the current
implementation and understand its responsibilities. Identify specific issues
(duplication, unclear naming, tight coupling). Make incremental changes,
running tests after each step to ensure behavior is unchanged.
| Task Type | Tip |
|---|---|
| Bug fixes | Include reproduction steps if known. Specify whether this is a quick fix or needs root cause analysis. |
| Feature implementation | Reference similar features in the codebase. Specify if tests are expected. |
| Refactoring | State the goal (readability, performance, testability). Emphasize incremental changes. |
| Code review | Specify focus areas (security, performance, style). Mention what to ignore. |
| Testing | Specify test type (unit, integration, e2e). Reference existing test patterns. |
Produce output in this exact format:
[2-3 sentences identifying the prompt type and which dimensions are weak]
[The improved prompt, ready to copy and use]
[1-2 sentences of relevant tips from the Task-Type Tips table]