Claude-skill-registry clavix-improve

Analyze and optimize prompts using 6-dimension quality assessment (Clarity, Efficiency, Structure, Completeness, Actionability, Specificity). Use when you need to improve a prompt before implementation.

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/clavix-improve" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-clavix-improve && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: skills/data/clavix-improve/SKILL.md
source content

Clavix Improve Skill

Analyze and optimize prompts with intelligent depth selection based on quality score.

What This Skill Does

  1. Analyze prompt quality - 6-dimension assessment (Clarity, Efficiency, Structure, Completeness, Actionability, Specificity)
  2. Select optimal depth - Auto-choose standard vs comprehensive based on quality score
  3. Apply improvement patterns - Transform using proven optimization techniques
  4. Generate optimized version - Enhanced prompt with quality feedback
  5. Save for implementation - Store in
    .clavix/outputs/prompts/
    for later use

State Assertion (REQUIRED)

Before starting analysis, output:

**CLAVIX MODE: Improve**
Mode: planning
Purpose: Optimizing user prompt with pattern-based analysis
Depth: [standard|comprehensive] (auto-detected based on quality score)
Implementation: BLOCKED - I will analyze and improve the prompt, not implement it

Self-Correction Protocol

DETECT: If you find yourself doing any of these 6 mistake types:

TypeWhat It Looks Like
1. Implementation CodeWriting function/class definitions, creating components, generating API endpoints
2. Skipping Quality AssessmentNot scoring all 6 dimensions, jumping to improved prompt without analysis
3. Wrong Depth SelectionNot explaining why standard/comprehensive was chosen
4. Incomplete Pattern ApplicationNot showing which patterns were applied
5. Missing Depth FeaturesIn comprehensive mode: missing alternatives, edge cases, or validation
6. Capability HallucinationClaiming features Clavix doesn't have, inventing pattern names

STOP: Immediately halt the incorrect action

CORRECT: Output: "I apologize - I was [describe mistake]. Let me return to prompt optimization."

RESUME: Return to the prompt optimization workflow with correct approach.


Smart Depth Selection

Based on quality assessment score:

Quality ScoreDepth SelectionRationale
≥ 75%Comprehensive (auto)Prompt is good, add polish and enhancements
60-74%User choiceBorderline quality, ask user preference
< 60%Standard (auto)Needs basic fixes first

Quality Dimensions

Evaluate across all 6 dimensions, score each 0-100%:

DimensionWhat It Measures
ClarityIs the objective clear and unambiguous?
EfficiencyIs the prompt concise without losing critical information?
StructureIs information organized logically?
CompletenessAre all necessary details provided?
ActionabilityCan AI take immediate action on this prompt?
SpecificityHow concrete and precise? (versions, paths, identifiers)

Calculate weighted overall score from all dimensions.


Workflow

Step 1: Intent Detection

Analyze what the user is trying to achieve:

  • code-generation: Writing new code or functions
  • planning: Designing architecture or breaking down tasks
  • refinement: Improving existing code or prompts
  • debugging: Finding and fixing issues
  • documentation: Creating docs or explanations
  • prd-generation: Creating requirements documents
  • testing: Writing tests, improving test coverage
  • migration: Version upgrades, porting code between frameworks
  • security-review: Security audits, vulnerability checks
  • learning: Conceptual understanding, tutorials, explanations
  • summarization: Extracting requirements from conversations

Step 2: Quality Assessment

Evaluate across all 6 dimensions and calculate overall score.

Display scores in table format:

| Dimension | Score |
|-----------|-------|
| Clarity | XX% |
| Efficiency | XX% |
| Structure | XX% |
| Completeness | XX% |
| Actionability | XX% |
| Specificity | XX% |
| **Overall** | XX% |

Step 3: Depth Selection

Based on quality score, announce selection:

  • ≥ 75%: "Quality is good (XX%) - using comprehensive depth for polish"
  • 60-74%: Ask user to choose depth
  • < 60%: "Quality is low (XX%) - using standard depth for basic fixes"

Step 4: Generate Output

Standard Depth Output Contract:

  • Intent Analysis (type, confidence)
  • Quality Assessment (6 dimensions table)
  • Optimized Prompt (with improvements applied)
  • Improvements Applied (labeled with quality dimensions)
  • Patterns Applied

Comprehensive Depth Output Contract (includes all standard plus):

  • Alternative Approaches (2-3 different ways to phrase the request)
  • Validation Checklist (steps to verify implementation)
  • Edge Cases to Consider
  • Risk Assessment ("What could go wrong" analysis)

Step 5: Label Improvements

All improvements must be labeled with quality dimension tags:

- [Clarity] Made objective explicit and unambiguous
- [Efficiency] Removed 15 unnecessary phrases
- [Structure] Reorganized into logical sections
- [Completeness] Added missing technical constraints
- [Actionability] Added specific success criteria
- [Specificity] Added version numbers and file paths

File-Saving Protocol

Step 1: Generate ID

Format:

{depth}-YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS-{random4}

  • std-20240115-143022-a7x2
    for standard depth
  • comp-20240115-143022-b9k4
    for comprehensive depth

Step 2: Create Directory

mkdir -p .clavix/outputs/prompts

Step 3: Save File

Path:

.clavix/outputs/prompts/{id}.md

Content structure:

---
id: {generated-id}
depthUsed: standard|comprehensive
timestamp: {ISO-8601 timestamp}
executed: false
originalPrompt: |
  {original user prompt text}
---

# Optimized Prompt

{The improved prompt content}

## Analysis Summary

Intent: {detected intent}
Quality: {before}% → {after}%
Patterns Applied: {list of patterns}

Step 4: Verify After Write

CRITICAL: Use Read to confirm file exists and has valid content.

If verification fails:

  • Retry save once
  • If still fails, display prompt content for manual copy

Example - Standard Depth

Input: "Please could you maybe help me create a login page?"

## Clavix Improve Analysis

### Depth Selection
Quality Score: 42% - Using standard depth for basic optimization

### Intent Detection
Type: code-generation
Confidence: 85%

### Quality Assessment

| Dimension | Score |
|-----------|-------|
| Clarity | 40% |
| Efficiency | 35% |
| Structure | 85% |
| Completeness | 20% |
| Actionability | 30% |
| Specificity | 25% |
| **Overall** | 42% |

### Optimized Prompt

Objective: Build a secure user authentication login page

Requirements:
- Email and password input fields with validation
- "Remember me" checkbox
- "Forgot password" link
- Clear error messages for invalid credentials
- Responsive design for mobile and desktop

Technical Constraints:
- Use React with TypeScript
- Integrate with existing JWT authentication API
- Follow WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility standards

Expected Output:
- Fully functional login component
- Unit tests with >80% coverage

Success Criteria:
- Users can log in successfully
- Invalid credentials show appropriate errors
- Page is accessible via keyboard navigation

### Improvements Applied

- [Clarity] Added specific objective statement
- [Completeness] Added missing requirements (remember me, forgot password)
- [Specificity] Added technical constraints (React, TypeScript, JWT)
- [Actionability] Added success criteria and expected output
- [Efficiency] Removed hedging language ("please could you maybe")

### Patterns Applied
- ObjectiveClarifier
- CompletenessValidator
- TechnicalContextEnricher
- SuccessCriteriaEnforcer
- ConcisenessFilter

Example - Comprehensive Depth

For prompts scoring ≥75%, comprehensive output adds:

  • Alternative Approaches: 2-3 different ways to achieve the goal
  • Validation Checklist: Testable criteria for implementation
  • Edge Cases: Unusual scenarios to handle
  • Risk Assessment: What could go wrong and mitigations

Mode Boundaries

This mode DOES:

  • Analyze prompts for quality
  • Apply improvement patterns
  • Generate improved versions
  • Provide quality assessments
  • Save the optimized prompt
  • STOP after improvement

This mode does NOT:

  • Write application code for the feature
  • Implement what the prompt describes
  • Generate actual components/functions
  • Modify files outside
    .clavix/
  • Continue after showing the improved prompt

Next Steps

After improvement is complete, guide user to:

If...Recommend
Ready to implement
/clavix-implement --latest
Task is larger than expected
/clavix-prd
for strategic planning
Want to iterate on prompt
/clavix-refine

Troubleshooting

Prompt Not Saved

Error: Cannot create directory

mkdir -p .clavix/outputs/prompts

Error: Invalid frontmatter

  • Re-save with valid YAML frontmatter
  • Ensure id, timestamp, executed fields are present

Wrong Depth Auto-Selected

Cause: Borderline quality score Solution: User can override with explicit depth choice, or re-run

Improved Prompt Still Feels Incomplete

Cause: Standard depth was used but comprehensive needed Solution: Re-run with comprehensive depth or use

/clavix-prd
for strategic planning