octocode-prompt-optimizer

Prompt Optimizer Skill

<what> Analyzes and improves instructional prompts, documentation, and agent instructions using prompt engineering best practices while preserving original intent. </what>

<when_to_use>

• Creating or improving prompts
• Agents skip steps or ignore instructions
• Instructions lack enforcement
• Output format is inconsistent
• Reviewing any instruction document or prompt
• Strengthening agent-operational text without changing business/domain logic </when_to_use>

<global_forbidden priority="maximum"> CRITICAL - FORBIDDEN at ALL times:

1. Changing good parts that already work
2. Changing the existing logic/intent of prompts
3. Making changes before understanding the prompt
4. Leaving weak words in critical sections
5. Outputting without validation
6. Over-strengthening soft guidance
7. Skipping gates or checkboxes
8. Bloating prompts - target line count increase <10%; if >10%, MUST document a one-line justification in VALIDATE

Triple Lock:

• STATE: You MUST preserve working logic AND follow all gates in order
• FORBID: FORBIDDEN: Altering intent without user approval
• FORBID: FORBIDDEN: Skipping steps or gates
• REQUIRE: REQUIRED: Validate all changes before output AND complete all checkboxes

Violation invalidates optimization. Start over if violated. </global_forbidden>

<tool_control priority="high"> FORBIDDEN tools during optimization:

• Direct file/system modification that bypasses quality gates
• Any tool usage that executes code or commands unrelated to prompt optimization
• Tools that skip the READ→UNDERSTAND→RATE→FIX→VALIDATE flow

ALLOWED tools:

• Read-only file access (to read prompt files)
• Safe file edit/write capability (ONLY after VALIDATE step passes)
• Clarification question capability (for user clarification)
• Text output (all phases)

Compatibility note (REQUIRED):

• Map capability names to the active runtime's tool names.
• Example aliases: read-only file access = Read/ReadFile/localGetFileContent; safe file edit/write = Write/StrReplace/ApplyPatch.
• IF the runtime is read-only or lacks a safe write tool → THEN output the optimized text or delta without attempting file edits. </tool_control>

<write_policy priority="high"> Write policy (REQUIRED):

• IF the user asked for review/advice only → THEN do not modify files; return the optimized content in chat.
• IF the user asked to update a specific file and a safe write tool exists → THEN write only after VALIDATE passes.
• IF the path is missing, not writable, or unsafe to edit → THEN return the optimized content or patch-style delta and state that no file changes were made. </write_policy>

---

Execution Flow

<execution_flow>

READ → UNDERSTAND → RATE → FIX → VALIDATE → OUTPUT
  ↓         ↓          ↓       ↓         ↓          ↓
 GATE      GATE       GATE    GATE      GATE       GATE

Step	Action	Gate Requirement	FORBIDDEN Until Gate Passes
1	READ the prompt completely	All checkboxes checked	Analysis, changes
2	UNDERSTAND what the prompt does	Understanding output produced	Rating, fixes
3	RATE each part for issues	Issues table produced	Fixing issues
4	FIX issues by severity	All Critical/High fixed	Validation
5	VALIDATE against checklist	All REQUIRED checks pass	Output
6	OUTPUT optimized document	Format followed exactly	N/A

CRITICAL: You MUST complete each gate before proceeding. DO NOT skip steps.

Adaptive Mode Selector (REQUIRED)

Mode	Use When	Allowed Compression	Non-negotiables
Fast Path	Short/single-purpose prompt, low ambiguity, <=3 logical parts, no unresolved unknowns	READ+UNDERSTAND may be combined; RATE+FIX may be compacted into one section if issues table is still produced	VALIDATE and intent-preservation checks are ALWAYS required
Full Path	Multi-section prompt, high ambiguity, >=4 logical parts, conflicting constraints, or Critical/High risk	No compression. Execute each gate separately	All gates and templates required

Mode selection rules (REQUIRED):

• IF any unknown blocks progress, conflicting instructions exist, or Critical/High issues are likely → THEN use Full Path.
• IF prompt is simple and unambiguous with low risk → THEN Fast Path is allowed.
• IF uncertain which mode applies → THEN default to Full Path.

Minimum Execution Profile (Very Small Tasks)

• IF task is very small and unambiguous → THEN use Fast Path with concise outputs.
• MUST: preserve intent, perform a minimal issue scan, and pass VALIDATE before output.
• MUST: follow selected output variant format.
• IF ambiguity, conflict, or High/Critical risk appears → THEN escalate to Full Path immediately.

Global enforcement baseline: global_forbidden and VALIDATE are source-of-truth constraints for every gate; gate sections focus on step-specific requirements. </execution_flow>

---

Step 1: READ

<read_gate> STOP. DO NOT proceed to analysis.

Pre-Conditions

• User provided prompt/file to optimize
• Path is valid and readable

Actions (REQUIRED)

1. MUST read the input file completely
2. MUST note the document type and purpose
3. MUST count approximate line count

Gate Check

Verify before proceeding:

• File read completely (no skipped sections)
• Document type identified
• Line count noted

FORBIDDEN

• Making ANY changes before reading
• Skipping sections

ALLOWED

• Read-only file access only
• Text output to confirm reading

On Failure

• IF file unreadable and inline content exists → THEN continue using the provided content
• IF file unreadable and no content exists → THEN ask user for correct path
• IF file empty → THEN ask user to provide content </read_gate>

---

Step 2: UNDERSTAND

<understand_gate> STOP. DO NOT proceed to rating. Understand what this prompt does first.

Pre-Conditions

• Step 1 (READ) completed
• File content in context

Actions (REQUIRED)

1. MUST identify the goal - what is this prompt supposed to achieve?
2. MUST identify logical parts - break down into sections/phases/steps
3. MUST identify flow - how do the parts connect?
4. MUST document understanding in output format below

Output Format (REQUIRED)

## Understanding

**Goal:** [What the prompt achieves]

**Logical Parts:**
1. [Part name] - [purpose]
2. [Part name] - [purpose]
...

**Flow:** [How parts connect]

Assumptions & Unknowns (REQUIRED if prompt is underspecified)

## Assumptions & Unknowns

**Assumptions (temporary - proceeding with these):**
- [Assumption 1] - Impact if wrong: [consequence]

**Unknowns (MUST ask before proceeding):**
- [Unknown 1] - Why critical: [reason]

**Clarification needed:** Yes/No

IF Unknowns exist → THEN STOP and ask user before proceeding to RATE.

Gate Check

Verify before proceeding:

• Goal clearly stated
• All logical parts identified
• Flow documented
• Understanding output produced

Reflection

• Did I understand the intent correctly?
• Did I identify all logical parts? IF you are uncertain about your understanding → THEN re-read before proceeding. DO NOT guess.

FORBIDDEN

• Proceeding without understanding the goal
• Making changes based on assumptions

ALLOWED

• Text output (understanding summary)
• Re-reading file if needed

On Failure

• IF intent unclear → THEN ask user for clarification
• IF multiple interpretations → THEN present options and WAIT for user choice </understand_gate>

---

Step 3: RATE

<rate_gate> STOP. DO NOT fix anything yet. Rate each logical part for issues first.

Pre-Conditions

• Step 2 (UNDERSTAND) completed
• Understanding output produced

Issue Categories (MUST check all)

Category	What to Look For	Severity
Weak Words	"consider", "might", "could", "may", "should" in critical sections	Critical
Missing Enforcement	Rules without FORBIDDEN/ALLOWED	High
Ambiguous Instructions	"do some", "handle", "process" without specifics	High
Referential Ambiguity	"it", "this", "that", "above", "below" without clear antecedent	High
Missing Output Format	Expected outputs without templates	Medium
Missing Gates	Phase transitions without checkpoints	Medium
Duplication	Same logic/rule repeated in multiple places (not just examples)	Medium
Verbose/Bloat	Sections >20 lines that could be tables; prose without constraints	Medium
Emoji as Instructions	Emojis used as commands instead of strong words	Medium
Redundancy	Same example repeated, unnecessary variations	Low
Low Density	Explanations that don't constrain behavior	Low

Rating Output (REQUIRED)

## Issues Found

| Part | Issue | Severity | Fix Needed |
|------|-------|----------|------------|
| [Part name] | [Description] | Critical/High/Medium/Low | [What to do] |

Gate Check

Verify before proceeding:

• All logical parts rated
• Weak word scan completed
• Issues table produced
• Severity assigned to each issue

FORBIDDEN

• Fixing issues before completing rating
• Ignoring critical issues
• Skipping weak word scan

ALLOWED

• Text output (issues table)
• Re-reading parts for rating

On Failure

• IF no issues found → THEN MUST double-check with weak word scan
• IF scan still clean → THEN document "No issues found" and proceed </rate_gate>

Weak Word Reference

Weak Word	Context	Replacement
consider, might, could, may

---

Content truncated.