gh-glittercowboy-taches-cc-resources/skills/create-meta-prompts/references/refine-patterns.md

Prompt patterns for improving existing research or plan outputs based on feedback.

<prompt_template>

<objective>
Refine {topic}-{original_purpose} based on feedback.

Target: @.prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/{topic}-{original_purpose}.md
Current summary: @.prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/SUMMARY.md

Purpose: {What improvement is needed}
Output: Updated {topic}-{original_purpose}.md with improvements
</objective>

<context>
Original output: @.prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/{topic}-{original_purpose}.md
</context>

<feedback>
{Specific issues to address}
{What was missing or insufficient}
{Areas needing more depth}
</feedback>

<preserve>
{What worked well and should be kept}
{Structure or findings to maintain}
</preserve>

<requirements>
- Address all feedback points
- Maintain original structure and metadata format
- Keep what worked from previous version
- Update confidence based on improvements
- Clearly improve on identified weaknesses
</requirements>

<output>
1. Archive current output to: `.prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/archive/{topic}-{original_purpose}-v{n}.md`
2. Write improved version to: `.prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/{topic}-{original_purpose}.md`
3. Create SUMMARY.md with version info and changes from previous
</output>

<summary_requirements>
Create `.prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/SUMMARY.md`

Load template: [summary-template.md](summary-template.md)

For Refine, always include:
- Version with iteration info (e.g., "v2 (refined from v1)")
- Changes from Previous section listing what improved
- Updated confidence if gaps were filled
</summary_requirements>

<success_criteria>
- All feedback points addressed
- Original structure maintained
- Previous version archived
- SUMMARY.md reflects version and changes
- Quality demonstrably improved
</success_criteria>

</prompt_template>

<key_principles>

<preserve_context> Refine builds on existing work, not replaces it:

<context>
Original output: @.prompts/001-auth-research/auth-research.md

Key strengths to preserve:
- Library comparison structure
- Security recommendations
- Code examples format
</context>

</preserve_context>

<specific_feedback> Feedback must be actionable:

<feedback>
Issues to address:
- Security analysis was surface-level - need CVE references and vulnerability patterns
- Performance benchmarks missing - add actual timing data
- Rate limiting patterns not covered

Do NOT change:
- Library comparison structure
- Recommendation format
</feedback>

</specific_feedback>

<version_tracking> Archive before overwriting:

<output>
1. Archive: `.prompts/001-auth-research/archive/auth-research-v1.md`
2. Write improved: `.prompts/001-auth-research/auth-research.md`
3. Update SUMMARY.md with version info
</output>

</version_tracking>

</key_principles>

<refine_types>

<deepen_research> When research was too surface-level:

<objective>
Refine auth-research based on feedback.

Target: @.prompts/001-auth-research/auth-research.md
</objective>

<feedback>
- Security analysis too shallow - need specific vulnerability patterns
- Missing performance benchmarks
- Rate limiting not covered
</feedback>

<preserve>
- Library comparison structure
- Code example format
- Recommendation priorities
</preserve>

<requirements>
- Add CVE references for common vulnerabilities
- Include actual benchmark data from library docs
- Add rate limiting patterns section
- Increase confidence if gaps are filled
</requirements>

</deepen_research>

<expand_scope> When research missed important areas:

<objective>
Refine stripe-research to include webhooks.

Target: @.prompts/005-stripe-research/stripe-research.md
</objective>

<feedback>
- Webhooks section completely missing
- Need signature verification patterns
- Retry handling not covered
</feedback>

<preserve>
- API authentication section
- Checkout flow documentation
- Error handling patterns
</preserve>

<requirements>
- Add comprehensive webhooks section
- Include signature verification code examples
- Cover retry and idempotency patterns
- Update summary to reflect expanded scope
</requirements>

</expand_scope>

<update_plan> When plan needs adjustment:

<objective>
Refine auth-plan to add rate limiting phase.

Target: @.prompts/002-auth-plan/auth-plan.md
</objective>

<feedback>
- Rate limiting was deferred but is critical for production
- Should be its own phase, not bundled with tests
</feedback>

<preserve>
- Phase 1-3 structure
- Dependency chain
- Task granularity
</preserve>

<requirements>
- Insert Phase 4: Rate limiting
- Adjust Phase 5 (tests) to depend on rate limiting
- Update phase count in summary
- Ensure new phase is prompt-sized
</requirements>

</update_plan>

<correct_errors> When output has factual errors:

<objective>
Refine jwt-research to correct library recommendation.

Target: @.prompts/003-jwt-research/jwt-research.md
</objective>

<feedback>
- jsonwebtoken recommendation is outdated
- jose is now preferred for security and performance
- Bundle size comparison was incorrect
</feedback>

<preserve>
- Research structure
- Security best practices section
- Token storage recommendations
</preserve>

<requirements>
- Update library recommendation to jose
- Correct bundle size data
- Add note about jsonwebtoken deprecation concerns
- Lower confidence if other findings may need verification
</requirements>

</correct_errors>

</refine_types>

<folder_structure> Refine prompts get their own folder (new number), but output goes to the original folder:

.prompts/
├── 001-auth-research/
│   ├── completed/
│   │   └── 001-auth-research.md       # Original prompt
│   ├── archive/
│   │   └── auth-research-v1.md        # Archived v1
│   ├── auth-research.md               # Current (v2)
│   └── SUMMARY.md                     # Reflects v2
├── 004-auth-research-refine/
│   ├── completed/
│   │   └── 004-auth-research-refine.md  # Refine prompt
│   └── (no output here - goes to 001)

This maintains:

• Clear prompt history (each prompt is numbered)
• Single source of truth for each output
• Visible iteration count in SUMMARY.md </folder_structure>

<execution_notes>

<dependency_handling> Refine prompts depend on the target output existing:

• Check target file exists before execution
• If target folder missing, offer to create the original prompt first

<dependency_check>
If `.prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/{topic}-{original_purpose}.md` not found:
- Error: "Cannot refine - target output doesn't exist"
- Offer: "Create the original {purpose} prompt first?"
</dependency_check>

</dependency_handling>

<archive_creation> Before overwriting, ensure archive exists:

mkdir -p .prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/archive/
mv .prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/{topic}-{original_purpose}.md \
   .prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/archive/{topic}-{original_purpose}-v{n}.md

</archive_creation>

<summary_update> SUMMARY.md must reflect the refinement:

• Update version number
• Add "Changes from Previous" section
• Update one-liner if findings changed
• Update confidence if improved </summary_update>

</execution_notes>