Initial commit

skills/prompt-writing/references/examples/command-examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+## Command Examples
+
+**Good Command with $ARGUMENTS:**
+
+```
+Analyze GitHub issue $ARGUMENTS and implement a fix:
+
+1. Run `gh issue view $ARGUMENTS` to read the issue
+2. Identify the root cause
+3. Write tests that reproduce the bug
+4. Implement the fix
+5. Verify tests pass
+6. Comment on the issue with your solution
+```
+
+Why it works: Flexible with any issue number, treats all input as one string.
+Usage: /fix-issue 123
+
+**Good Command with Positional Parameters:**
+
+```
+Review PR #$1 with priority $2 and assign to $3.
+
+Focus on:
+- Security vulnerabilities
+- Performance implications
+- Code style consistency
+
+Report findings and tag $3 for follow-up.
+```
+
+Why it works: Accesses each argument individually for different purposes.
+Usage: /review-pr 456 high alice
+
+**When to use each:**
+
+$ARGUMENTS: When you want all input as a single value (issue numbers, commit messages, search queries)
+
+$1, $2, $3: When you need to handle multiple distinct pieces of information (PR number + priority + assignee, or feature name + test type + output format)
+
+**Bad Command:**
+
+```
+Fix the bug.
+```
+
+Why it's bad: No process, no context, too vague.
+
+**Good Command:**
+
+```
+Implement the feature using test-driven development:
+
+1. Read the feature description from work-items.md
+2. Write a failing test that verifies the feature
+3. Run the test to confirm it fails
+4. Write minimal code to make the test pass
+5. Run tests to verify they pass
+6. Run full test suite to check for regressions
+7. Update scratchpad with progress
+
+If stuck after 3 attempts, log the blocker and ask for guidance.
+```
+
+Why it works: Clear steps, explicit process, handles failure.
+