Awesome-omni-skills prompt-engineering

Prompt Engineering Patterns workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Expert guide on prompt engineering patterns, best practices, and optimization techniques. Use when user wants to improve prompts, learn prompting strategies, or debug agent behavior and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skills
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/prompt-engineering" ~/.claude/skills/diegosouzapw-awesome-omni-skills-prompt-engineering && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: skills/prompt-engineering/SKILL.md
source content

Prompt Engineering Patterns

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/prompt-engineering
from
https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json
plus
ORIGIN.md
as the provenance anchor for review.

Prompt Engineering Patterns Advanced prompt engineering techniques to maximize LLM performance, reliability, and controllability.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Core Capabilities, Key Patterns, Common Pitfalls, Limitations.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

  • This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
  • Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Expert guide on prompt engineering patterns, best practices, and optimization techniques. Use when user wants to improve prompts, learn prompting strategies, or debug agent behavior.
  • Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
  • Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
  • Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
  • Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.

Operating Table

SituationStart hereWhy it matters
First-time use
metadata.json
Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path before touching the copied workflow
Provenance review
ORIGIN.md
Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source
Workflow execution
SKILL.md
Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution
Supporting context
SKILL.md
Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package
Handoff decision
## Related Skills
Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

  1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
  2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
  3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
  4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
  5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
  6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
  7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Core Capabilities

1. Few-Shot Learning

Teach the model by showing examples instead of explaining rules. Include 2-5 input-output pairs that demonstrate the desired behavior. Use when you need consistent formatting, specific reasoning patterns, or handling of edge cases. More examples improve accuracy but consume tokens—balance based on task complexity.

Example:

Extract key information from support tickets:

Input: "My login doesn't work and I keep getting error 403"
Output: {"issue": "authentication", "error_code": "403", "priority": "high"}

Input: "Feature request: add dark mode to settings"
Output: {"issue": "feature_request", "error_code": null, "priority": "low"}

Now process: "Can't upload files larger than 10MB, getting timeout"

2. Chain-of-Thought Prompting

Request step-by-step reasoning before the final answer. Add "Let's think step by step" (zero-shot) or include example reasoning traces (few-shot). Use for complex problems requiring multi-step logic, mathematical reasoning, or when you need to verify the model's thought process. Improves accuracy on analytical tasks by 30-50%.

Example:

Analyze this bug report and determine root cause.

Think step by step:

1. What is the expected behavior?
2. What is the actual behavior?
3. What changed recently that could cause this?
4. What components are involved?
5. What is the most likely root cause?

Bug: "Users can't save drafts after the cache update deployed yesterday"

3. Prompt Optimization

Systematically improve prompts through testing and refinement. Start simple, measure performance (accuracy, consistency, token usage), then iterate. Test on diverse inputs including edge cases. Use A/B testing to compare variations. Critical for production prompts where consistency and cost matter.

Example:

Version 1 (Simple): "Summarize this article"
→ Result: Inconsistent length, misses key points

Version 2 (Add constraints): "Summarize in 3 bullet points"
→ Result: Better structure, but still misses nuance

Version 3 (Add reasoning): "Identify the 3 main findings, then summarize each"
→ Result: Consistent, accurate, captures key information

4. Template Systems

Build reusable prompt structures with variables, conditional sections, and modular components. Use for multi-turn conversations, role-based interactions, or when the same pattern applies to different inputs. Reduces duplication and ensures consistency across similar tasks.

Example:

# Reusable code review template
template = """
Review this {language} code for {focus_area}.

Code:
{code_block}

Provide feedback on:
{checklist}
"""

# Usage
prompt = template.format(
    language="Python",
    focus_area="security vulnerabilities",
    code_block=user_code,
    checklist="1. SQL injection\n2. XSS risks\n3. Authentication"
)

5. System Prompt Design

Set global behavior and constraints that persist across the conversation. Define the model's role, expertise level, output format, and safety guidelines. Use system prompts for stable instructions that shouldn't change turn-to-turn, freeing up user message tokens for variable content.

Example:

System: You are a senior backend engineer specializing in API design.

Rules:

- Always consider scalability and performance
- Suggest RESTful patterns by default
- Flag security concerns immediately
- Provide code examples in Python
- Use early return pattern

Format responses as:

1. Analysis
2. Recommendation
3. Code example
4. Trade-offs

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @prompt-engineering to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @prompt-engineering against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @prompt-engineering for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @prompt-engineering using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

  • Be Specific: Vague prompts produce inconsistent results
  • Show, Don't Tell: Examples are more effective than descriptions
  • Test Extensively: Evaluate on diverse, representative inputs
  • Iterate Rapidly: Small changes can have large impacts
  • Monitor Performance: Track metrics in production
  • Version Control: Treat prompts as code with proper versioning
  • Document Intent: Explain why prompts are structured as they are

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Best Practices

  1. Be Specific: Vague prompts produce inconsistent results
  2. Show, Don't Tell: Examples are more effective than descriptions
  3. Test Extensively: Evaluate on diverse, representative inputs
  4. Iterate Rapidly: Small changes can have large impacts
  5. Monitor Performance: Track metrics in production
  6. Version Control: Treat prompts as code with proper versioning
  7. Document Intent: Explain why prompts are structured as they are

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/prompt-engineering
, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open
metadata.json
,
ORIGIN.md
, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Load only the files that materially change the answer, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated

SKILL.md
, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

  • @prompt-engineer
    - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
  • @prompt-engineering-patterns
    - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
  • @prompt-library
    - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
  • @protect-mcp-governance
    - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Resource familyWhat it gives the reviewerExample path
references
copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream
references/n/a
examples
worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream
examples/n/a
scripts
upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation
scripts/n/a
agents
routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package
agents/n/a
assets
supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package
assets/n/a

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Key Patterns

Progressive Disclosure

Start with simple prompts, add complexity only when needed:

  1. Level 1: Direct instruction

    • "Summarize this article"
  2. Level 2: Add constraints

    • "Summarize this article in 3 bullet points, focusing on key findings"
  3. Level 3: Add reasoning

    • "Read this article, identify the main findings, then summarize in 3 bullet points"
  4. Level 4: Add examples

    • Include 2-3 example summaries with input-output pairs

Instruction Hierarchy

[System Context] → [Task Instruction] → [Examples] → [Input Data] → [Output Format]

Error Recovery

Build prompts that gracefully handle failures:

  • Include fallback instructions
  • Request confidence scores
  • Ask for alternative interpretations when uncertain
  • Specify how to indicate missing information

Imported: Common Pitfalls

  • Over-engineering: Starting with complex prompts before trying simple ones
  • Example pollution: Using examples that don't match the target task
  • Context overflow: Exceeding token limits with excessive examples
  • Ambiguous instructions: Leaving room for multiple interpretations
  • Ignoring edge cases: Not testing on unusual or boundary inputs

Imported: 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.