SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC prompt-optimizer

Transforms vague prompts or feature requests into precise, testable specifications using EARS (Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax) grounded in relevant domain theories (GTD, BJ Fogg, Gestalt). Use when requirements lack triggers or measurable outcomes, or the user asks to "optimize my prompt" / "improve this requirement" / "make this more specific".

daymade/claude-code-skills Agent Skills author: daymade MIT 5 files body ≈ 1 846 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 12 d ago

Transforms vague prompts or feature requests into precise, testable specifications using EARS (Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax) grounded in relevant…

As a process C 64/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

GeneratorAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
97/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
93
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
64/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 64/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
    • 85Steps. 50 steps, 3 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1846 tokens
    • low The response is described with custom markup (4 tags): a typed call is more reliable

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 3 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 353: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 13 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 50 items
    • +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 93.