AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Llm Prompt Optimizer

skill-ultroncore-claude-skill-vault-llm-prompt-optimizer · by UltronCore

Use when improving prompts for any LLM. Applies proven prompt engineering techniques to boost output quality, reduce hallucinations, and cut token usage.

No reviews yet
0 installs
6 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-ultroncore-claude-skill-vault-llm-prompt-optimizer

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

Are you the author of Llm Prompt Optimizer? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

LLM Prompt Optimizer

Overview

This skill transforms weak, vague, or inconsistent prompts into precision-engineered instructions that reliably produce high-quality outputs from any LLM (Claude, Gemini, GPT-4, Llama, etc.). It applies systematic prompt engineering frameworks — from zero-shot to few-shot, chain-of-thought, and structured output patterns.

When to Use This Skill

  • Use when a prompt returns inconsistent, vague, or hallucinated results
  • Use when you need structured/JSON output from an LLM reliably
  • Use when designing system prompts for AI agents or chatbots
  • Use when you want to reduce token usage without sacrificing quality
  • Use when implementing chain-of-thought reasoning for complex tasks
  • Use when prompts work on one model but fail on another

Step-by-Step Guide

1. Diagnose the Weak Prompt

Before optimizing, identify which problem pattern applies:

| Problem | Symptom | Fix | |---------|---------|-----| | Too vague | Generic, unhelpful answers | Add role + context + constraints | | No structure | Unformatted, hard-to-parse output | Specify output format explicitly | | Hallucination | Confident wrong answers | Add "say I don't know if unsure" | | Inconsistent | Different answers each run | Add few-shot examples | | Too long | Verbose, padded responses | Add length constraints |

2. Apply the RSCIT Framework

Every optimized prompt should have:

  • RRole: Who is the AI in this interaction?
  • SSituation: What context does it need?
  • CConstraints: What are the rules and limits?
  • IInstructions: What exactly should it do?
  • TTemplate: What should the output look like?

Before (weak prompt):

Explain machine learning.

After (optimized prompt):

You are a senior ML engineer explaining concepts to a junior developer.

Context: The developer has 1 year of Python experience but no ML background.

Task: Explain supervised machine learning in simple terms.

Constraints:
- Use an analogy from everyday life
- Maximum 200 words
- No mathematical formulas
- End with one actionable next step

Format: Plain prose, no bullet points.

3. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Pattern

For reasoning tasks, instruct the model to think step-by-step:

Solve this problem step by step, showing your work at each stage.
Only provide the final answer after completing all reasoning steps.

Problem: [your problem here]

Thinking process:
Step 1: [identify what's given]
Step 2: [identify what's needed]
Step 3: [apply logic or formula]
Step 4: [verify the answer]

Final Answer:

4. Few-Shot Examples Pattern

Provide 2-3 examples to establish the pattern:

Classify the sentiment of customer reviews as POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, or NEUTRAL.

Examples:
Review: "This product exceeded my expectations!" -> POSITIVE
Review: "It arrived broken and support was useless." -> NEGATIVE  
Review: "Product works as described, nothing special." -> NEUTRAL

Now classify:
Review: "[your review here]" ->

5. Structured JSON Output Pattern

Extract the following information from the text below and return it as valid JSON only.
Do not include any explanation or markdown — just the raw JSON object.

Schema:
{
  "name": string,
  "email": string | null,
  "company": string | null,
  "role": string | null
}

Text: [input text here]

6. Reduce Hallucination Pattern

Answer the following question based ONLY on the provided context.
If the answer is not contained in the context, respond with exactly: "I don't have enough information to answer this."
Do not make up or infer information not present in the context.

Context:
[your context here]

Question: [your question here]

7. Prompt Compression Techniques

Reduce token count without losing effectiveness:

# Verbose (expensive)
"Please carefully analyze the following code and provide a detailed explanation of 
what it does, how it works, and any potential issues you might find."

# Compressed (efficient, same quality)
"Analyze this code: explain what it does, how it works, and flag any issues."

Best Practices

  • Do: Always specify the output format (JSON, markdown, plain text, bullet list)
  • Do: Use delimiters (```, ---) to separate instructions from content
  • Do: Test prompts with edge cases (empty input, unusual data)
  • Do: Version your system prompts in source control
  • Do: Add "think step by step" for math, logic, or multi-step tasks
  • Don't: Use negative-only instructions ("don't be verbose") — add positive alternatives
  • Don't: Assume the model knows your codebase context — always include it
  • Don't: Use the same prompt across different models without testing — they behave differently

Prompt Audit Checklist

Before using a prompt in production:

  • [ ] Does it have a clear role/persona?
  • [ ] Is the output format explicitly defined?
  • [ ] Are edge cases handled (empty input, ambiguous data)?
  • [ ] Is the length appropriate (not too long/short)?
  • [ ] Has it been tested on 5+ varied inputs?
  • [ ] Is hallucination risk addressed for factual tasks?

Troubleshooting

Problem: Model ignores format instructions Solution: Move format instructions to the END of the prompt, after examples. Use strong language: "You MUST return only valid JSON."

Problem: Inconsistent results between runs Solution: Lower the temperature setting (0.0-0.3 for factual tasks). Add more few-shot examples.

Problem: Prompt works in playground but fails in production Solution: Check if system prompt is being sent correctly. Verify token limits aren't being exceeded (use a token counter).

Problem: Output is too long Solution: Add explicit word/sentence limits: "Respond in exactly 3 bullet points, each under 20 words."

Limitations

  • Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
  • Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
  • Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.

Related Skills

  • dspy — programmatic prompt optimization
  • prompt-versioning — prompt management
  • llm-evaluation — measuring improvements

GitNexus Index

This skill is indexed by GitNexus for knowledge graph traversal. Index path: /Users/localuser/.claude/skills/llm-prompt-optimizer/.gitnexus Last indexed: 2026-05-23

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.