CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

prompt-engineering-patterns

Master advanced prompt engineering techniques to maximize LLM performance, reliability, and controllability.

40

Quality

39%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/prompt-engineering-patterns/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is prompt-engineering-patterns in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

42%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill is overly verbose and reads like a general prompt engineering tutorial rather than a focused, actionable reference for Claude. It extensively explains concepts Claude already understands (few-shot learning, chain-of-thought, best practices) and uses a fictional Python library in its primary code example, reducing actionability. The structure has some merit with clear sections and resource references, but the content would benefit significantly from trimming generic advice and adding concrete, executable patterns.

Suggestions

Remove or drastically condense sections that explain concepts Claude already knows (Core Capabilities descriptions, Best Practices, Common Pitfalls, Success Metrics) — these are generic prompt engineering knowledge that doesn't need to be taught.

Replace the fictional 'prompt_optimizer' library example with real, executable code or concrete prompt text templates that can be directly used.

Add explicit validation/iteration workflow: e.g., 'Write prompt → Test on 3 diverse inputs → Check for consistency → Refine specific failure modes → Re-test' with concrete checkpoints.

Fix the path inconsistency: the Instructions reference 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' but the Resources section lists paths under 'references/' and 'assets/' — align these or consolidate.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extensively verbose with many sections that explain concepts Claude already knows well (what few-shot learning is, what chain-of-thought prompting is, basic best practices like 'Be Specific', 'Test Extensively'). The 'Common Pitfalls', 'Best Practices', 'Success Metrics', and 'Next Steps' sections are largely generic advice that adds little actionable value. The skill reads more like a textbook chapter than a concise reference.

2 / 5

Actionability

The code examples (PromptTemplate, RAG integration, validation) provide some concrete guidance, but the PromptTemplate/FewShotSelector code references a fictional library ('prompt_optimizer') that isn't real or executable. Most of the content is descriptive lists and abstract advice rather than specific, copy-paste-ready patterns. The 'Core Capabilities' section is entirely bullet-point descriptions with no executable examples.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 'Progressive Disclosure' pattern under Key Patterns provides a reasonable sequence (Level 1-4), and the 'Instruction Hierarchy' gives a clear ordering. However, there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the prompt engineering workflow itself. The 'Integration Patterns > With Validation' section shows a self-verification concept but doesn't integrate it into a clear iterative workflow with explicit error recovery steps.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References to external files (references/, assets/, scripts/) are listed clearly in the Resources section, but no bundle files are provided, making these references unverifiable. The SKILL.md itself is monolithic at ~200 lines with content that could be split into separate files (e.g., the detailed Core Capabilities descriptions, Integration Patterns). The instruction to 'open resources/implementation-playbook.md' is good but the path doesn't match any listed resource.

3 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Description

36%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description is too abstract and buzzword-heavy, reading more like a course title than a functional skill description. It fails to list concrete actions the skill performs and entirely lacks a 'Use when...' clause, making it difficult for Claude to know when to select it over other skills. The domain is identifiable but the description needs substantial improvement in specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Writes system prompts, structures few-shot examples, designs chain-of-thought reasoning patterns, and optimizes prompt templates for specific LLM tasks.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for help writing prompts, improving prompt quality, creating system prompts, or designing few-shot examples.'

Replace vague outcome language ('maximize performance, reliability, and controllability') with specific techniques or outputs that distinguish this skill from general LLM-related skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('prompt engineering') but the actions are vague and abstract — 'maximize LLM performance, reliability, and controllability' are buzzwords rather than concrete actions like 'write system prompts', 'structure few-shot examples', or 'design chain-of-thought prompts'.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is vaguely stated (master advanced prompt engineering techniques) and there is no 'when' clause at all — no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 3, and the weak 'what' brings it down further.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Prompt engineering' and 'LLM' are relevant keywords a user might use, but common natural phrases like 'write a prompt', 'system prompt', 'few-shot', 'chain of thought', 'prompt template', or 'improve my prompt' are all missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The domain of 'prompt engineering' is somewhat specific, but the vague framing around 'LLM performance' could overlap with skills about LLM evaluation, model tuning, or general AI assistance. It's not generic enough to conflict with everything but lacks the specificity to carve a clear niche.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

20

Passed

Validation

90%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.