aakashg/pm-claude-skills/prompt-engineer

Prompt Engineer

Diagnose a prompt, rewrite it, and show exactly what changed and why.

Step 0 — Read first

If the user pasted a prompt but no failing output, ask for one example of what it produced. Diagnosing from the prompt alone guesses at the failure mode.

Constraints

Mandatory.

• Always show before and after. The user must see the diff, not just the result.
• Explain every change by the problem it solves, not the technique name alone.
• Preserve the user's intent. Improve how they ask, never what they are asking for.
• Right-size the fix. A 10-line prompt that works beats a 50-line prompt that confuses.
• Never add chain-of-thought to a simple generative task like "write a tweet."
• Never write "be thorough and comprehensive." Name exactly what to cover.
• Never add a role that does not match the task.
• Never add a few-shot example below the quality bar you expect back. Bad examples teach bad patterns.
• If the prompt is longer than its expected output on an analytical task, it is too long. Cut it.

Existence check

Before rewriting, verify:

1. The prompt itself — the literal text, not a description of it.
2. The goal — what the user wants the output to do or be used for.
3. The failure — what the current output gets wrong, ideally with a sample.

If two of three are missing, do not rewrite. Ask for exactly those. Rewriting a prompt without knowing how it fails produces a longer prompt, not a better one.

Step 1 — Diagnose

Score the prompt across these dimensions. Name which ones fail.

Step 2 — Match the failure to the fix

If the user provided failing output, use this table instead of guessing.

If the prompt is trying to do 3+ distinct things, do not rewrite it — split it into a chain and say so.

Step 3 — Apply techniques

Match technique to the diagnosed problem. Not every prompt needs every technique. Full before/after examples for each are in references/techniques.md.

• Role priming — specific identity with relevant experience
• Structured output — exact fields, order, and length
• Chain of thought — only for multi-step reasoning
• Few-shot examples — 1–3 pairs including one edge case
• Constraints — explicit DO / DON'T
• Evaluation criteria — self-check before responding
• Delimiter separation — separate instructions from input data

Output template

Exact sections, exact order.

~~~

Diagnosis

[2-3 sentences. Which dimensions fail and what that causes in the output.]

Improved prompt

[The full rewritten prompt, copy-pasteable, nothing else in the block]

What changed and why

• [Technique] → [the specific problem it fixes]
• [Technique] → [the specific problem it fixes]
• [Technique] → [the specific problem it fixes]

How to test it

Run it with [specific input]. You should see [specific difference]. If it still fails, try [fallback]. ~~~

Example

Before:

Write a competitive analysis of Notion.

Diagnosis: No role, no structure, no audience, no scope, no output format. The model will produce a generic overview of everything Notion does, at whatever length it picks.

After:

You are a senior product strategist at a B2B knowledge management company competing with Notion.
 
Analyze Notion's AI features specifically. Structure your analysis as:
 
1. WHAT THEY BUILT
- Core AI features (list each with one-line description)
- Target user for each feature
- Pricing model for AI features
 
2. WHAT'S SMART (3 product decisions)
- For each: what they did, why it works, evidence
 
3. WHAT'S WEAK (3 gaps or friction points)
- For each: the issue, who it affects, opportunity for us
 
4. IMPLICATIONS
- 2 things we should copy and why
- 2 things we should avoid and why
- 1 opportunity they're missing that we could own
 
Rules:
- Be specific. "Good UX" is not analysis. Name the interaction and explain why it works.
- If you don't have data, say "[NEED: data on X]" instead of guessing.
- Keep total output under 800 words.

What changed and why:

• Role priming → output comes from a strategic angle instead of an encyclopedia entry
• Structured output → every run returns the same four sections, so runs are comparable
• Scope narrowing ("AI features specifically") → prevents a shallow survey of the whole product
• Grounding rule → replaces invented statistics with a visible gap marker
• Length cap → forces selection instead of padding

How to test it: Run both versions. The original will open with "Notion is an all-in-one workspace." The rewrite will open with a named feature and a pricing tier.

Two more full before/afters — weak few-shot → strong few-shot, and over-engineered → right-sized — are in references/techniques.md.

Shortcuts Claude takes

Exit checklist

Not complete until every box is checked. Any [bracket] placeholder left in the improved prompt is an automatic unchecked box.

• [ ] Existence check passed, or missing inputs requested
• [ ] Diagnosis names the specific failing dimensions
• [ ] Improved prompt is in one clean code block, copy-pasteable
• [ ] Every change is listed with the problem it fixes
• [ ] The improved prompt preserves the user's original intent
• [ ] Length is proportionate to the task — no bloat added
• [ ] No banned filler ("be thorough and comprehensive")
• [ ] Any few-shot example meets the quality bar expected back
• [ ] A concrete test input and expected difference are given
• [ ] A fallback is named for if it still fails
• [ ] No placeholders remain

Next

• If the prompt turned out to need 3+ chained steps → recommend building it as a skill instead, using templates/SKILL-TEMPLATE.md.
• If the prompt is one the user runs weekly → recommend turning it into a skill so it stops living in a scratch file.
• If the underlying task is writing a status update, a LinkedIn post, or a design review → recommend the matching skill rather than a custom prompt.