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.
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
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"
skills/data/clavix-improve/SKILL.mdClavix Improve Skill
Analyze and optimize prompts with intelligent depth selection based on quality score.
What This Skill Does
- Analyze prompt quality - 6-dimension assessment (Clarity, Efficiency, Structure, Completeness, Actionability, Specificity)
- Select optimal depth - Auto-choose standard vs comprehensive based on quality score
- Apply improvement patterns - Transform using proven optimization techniques
- Generate optimized version - Enhanced prompt with quality feedback
- Save for implementation - Store in
for later use.clavix/outputs/prompts/
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:
| Type | What It Looks Like |
|---|---|
| 1. Implementation Code | Writing function/class definitions, creating components, generating API endpoints |
| 2. Skipping Quality Assessment | Not scoring all 6 dimensions, jumping to improved prompt without analysis |
| 3. Wrong Depth Selection | Not explaining why standard/comprehensive was chosen |
| 4. Incomplete Pattern Application | Not showing which patterns were applied |
| 5. Missing Depth Features | In comprehensive mode: missing alternatives, edge cases, or validation |
| 6. Capability Hallucination | Claiming 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 Score | Depth Selection | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| ≥ 75% | Comprehensive (auto) | Prompt is good, add polish and enhancements |
| 60-74% | User choice | Borderline quality, ask user preference |
| < 60% | Standard (auto) | Needs basic fixes first |
Quality Dimensions
Evaluate across all 6 dimensions, score each 0-100%:
| Dimension | What It Measures |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Is the objective clear and unambiguous? |
| Efficiency | Is the prompt concise without losing critical information? |
| Structure | Is information organized logically? |
| Completeness | Are all necessary details provided? |
| Actionability | Can AI take immediate action on this prompt? |
| Specificity | How 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}
for standard depthstd-20240115-143022-a7x2
for comprehensive depthcomp-20240115-143022-b9k4
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 | |
| Task is larger than expected | for strategic planning |
| Want to iterate on prompt | |
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