Initial commit

2025-11-30 08:38:26 +08:00
commit 41d9f6b189
304 changed files with 98322 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/meta-prompt-engineering/resources/template.md
+++ b/skills/meta-prompt-engineering/resources/template.md
@@ -0,0 +1,504 @@
+# Meta Prompt Engineering Template
+
+## Workflow
+
+```
+Prompt Engineering Progress:
+- [ ] Step 1: Analyze baseline prompt
+- [ ] Step 2: Define role and objective
+- [ ] Step 3: Structure task steps
+- [ ] Step 4: Add constraints and format
+- [ ] Step 5: Include quality checks
+- [ ] Step 6: Test and refine
+```
+
+**Step 1: Analyze baseline prompt**
+Document current prompt and its failure modes. See [Failure Mode Analysis](#failure-mode-analysis).
+
+**Step 2: Define role and objective**
+Complete [Role & Objective](#role--objective-section) section. See [Role Selection Guide](#role-selection-guide).
+
+**Step 3: Structure task steps**
+Break down [Task](#task-section) into numbered steps. See [Task Decomposition](#task-decomposition-guide).
+
+**Step 4: Add constraints and format**
+Specify [Constraints](#constraints-section) and [Output Format](#output-format-section). See [Constraint Patterns](#common-constraint-patterns).
+
+**Step 5: Include quality checks**
+Add [Quality Checks](#quality-checks-section) for self-evaluation. See [Check Design](#quality-check-design).
+
+**Step 6: Test and refine**
+Run 5-10 times, measure consistency. See [Testing Protocol](#testing-protocol).
+
+---
+
+## Quick Template
+
+Copy this structure to `meta-prompt-engineering.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# Engineered Prompt: [Name]
+
+## Role & Objective
+
+**Role:** You are a [specific role] with expertise in [domain/skills].
+
+**Objective:** Your goal is to [specific, measurable outcome] for [target audience].
+
+**Priorities:** You should prioritize [values/principles in order].
+
+## Task
+
+Complete the following steps in order:
+
+1. **[Step 1 name]:** [Clear instruction with deliverable]
+   - [Sub-requirement if needed]
+   - [Expected output format for this step]
+
+2. **[Step 2 name]:** [Clear instruction building on step 1]
+   - [Sub-requirement]
+   - [Expected output]
+
+3. **[Step 3 name]:** [Synthesis or final step]
+   - [Requirements]
+   - [Final deliverable]
+
+## Constraints
+
+**Format:**
+- Output must be [structure: JSON/markdown/sections]
+- Use [specific formatting rules]
+
+**Length:**
+- [Section/total]: [min]-[max] [words/characters/tokens]
+- [Other length specifications]
+
+**Tone & Style:**
+- [Tone]: [Professional/casual/technical/etc.]
+- [Reading level]: [Target audience literacy]
+- [Vocabulary]: [Domain-specific/accessible/etc.]
+
+**Content:**
+- **Must include:** [Required elements, citations, data]
+- **Must avoid:** [Prohibited content, stereotypes, speculation]
+- **Accuracy:** [Fact-checking requirements, uncertainty handling]
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+[Show exact structure expected, e.g.:]
+
+## Section 1: [Name]
+[Description of what goes here]
+
+## Section 2: [Name]
+[Description]
+
+...
+```
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+Before finalizing your response, verify:
+
+- [ ] **[Criterion 1]:** [Specific, measurable check]
+  - Test: [How to verify this criterion]
+  - Fix: [What to do if it fails]
+
+- [ ] **[Criterion 2]:** [Specific check]
+  - Test: [Verification method]
+  - Fix: [Correction approach]
+
+- [ ] **[Criterion 3]:** [Specific check]
+  - Test: [How to verify]
+  - Fix: [How to correct]
+
+**If any check fails, revise before responding.**
+
+## Examples (Optional)
+
+### Example 1: [Scenario]
+**Input:** [Example input]
+**Expected Output:**
+```
+[Show desired output format and content]
+```
+
+### Example 2: [Different scenario]
+**Input:** [Example input]
+**Expected Output:**
+```
+[Show desired output]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+- [Any additional context, edge cases, or clarifications]
+- [Known limitations or assumptions]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Role Selection Guide
+
+**Choose role based on desired expertise and tone:**
+
+**Expert Roles** (authoritative, specific knowledge):
+- "Senior software architect" → technical design decisions
+- "Medical researcher" → scientific accuracy, citations
+- "Financial analyst" → quantitative rigor, risk assessment
+- "Legal counsel" → compliance, liability considerations
+
+**Assistant Roles** (helpful, collaborative):
+- "Technical writing assistant" → documentation, clarity
+- "Research assistant" → information gathering, synthesis
+- "Data analyst assistant" → analysis support, visualization
+
+**Critic/Reviewer Roles** (evaluative, quality-focused):
+- "Code reviewer" → find bugs, suggest improvements
+- "Editor" → prose quality, clarity, consistency
+- "Security auditor" → vulnerability identification
+
+**Creator Roles** (generative, imaginative):
+- "Content strategist" → engaging narratives, messaging
+- "Product designer" → user experience, interaction
+- "Marketing copywriter" → persuasive, benefit-focused
+
+**Key Principle:** More specific role = more consistent, domain-appropriate outputs
+
+---
+
+## Task Decomposition Guide
+
+**Break complex tasks into 3-7 clear steps:**
+
+**Pattern 1: Sequential (each step builds on previous)**
+```
+1. Gather/analyze [input]
+2. Identify [patterns/issues]
+3. Generate [solutions/options]
+4. Evaluate [against criteria]
+5. Recommend [best option with rationale]
+```
+Use for: Analysis → synthesis → recommendation workflows
+
+**Pattern 2: Parallel (independent subtasks)**
+```
+1. Address [dimension A]
+2. Address [dimension B]
+3. Address [dimension C]
+4. Synthesize [combine A, B, C]
+```
+Use for: Multi-faceted problems with separate concerns
+
+**Pattern 3: Iterative (refine through cycles)**
+```
+1. Create initial [draft/solution]
+2. Self-critique against [criteria]
+3. Revise based on critique
+4. Final check and polish
+```
+Use for: Quality-critical outputs, creative work
+
+**Each step should specify:**
+- Clear action verb (Analyze, Generate, Evaluate, etc.)
+- Expected deliverable (list, table, paragraph, code)
+- Success criteria (what "done" looks like)
+
+---
+
+## Common Constraint Patterns
+
+### Length Constraints
+```
+**Total:** 500-750 words
+**Sections:**
+- Introduction: 100-150 words
+- Body: 300-450 words (3 paragraphs, 100-150 each)
+- Conclusion: 100-150 words
+```
+
+### Format Constraints
+```
+**Structure:** JSON with keys: "summary", "analysis", "recommendations"
+**Markdown:** Use ## for main sections, ### for subsections, code blocks for examples
+**Lists:** Use bullet points for features, numbered lists for steps
+```
+
+### Tone Constraints
+```
+**Professional:** Formal language, avoid contractions, third person
+**Conversational:** Friendly, use "you", contractions OK, second person
+**Technical:** Domain terminology, assume expert audience, precision over accessibility
+**Accessible:** Explain jargon, analogies, assume novice audience
+```
+
+### Content Constraints
+```
+**Must Include:**
+- At least 3 specific examples
+- Citations for any claims (Author, Year)
+- Quantitative data where available
+- Actionable takeaways (3-5 items)
+
+**Must Avoid:**
+- Speculation without labeling ("I speculate..." or "This is uncertain")
+- Personal information (PII)
+- Copyrighted material without attribution
+- Stereotypes or biased framing
+```
+
+---
+
+## Quality Check Design
+
+**Effective quality checks are:**
+- **Specific:** Not "Is it good?" but "Does it include 3 examples?"
+- **Measurable:** Can be objectively verified (count, check presence, test condition)
+- **Actionable:** Clear what to do if check fails
+- **Necessary:** Prevents known failure modes
+
+**Examples of good quality checks:**
+
+```
+- [ ] **Completeness:** All required sections present (Introduction, Body, Conclusion)
+  - Test: Count sections, check headings
+  - Fix: Add missing sections with placeholder content
+
+- [ ] **Citation accuracy:** All claims have sources in (Author, Year) format
+  - Test: Search for factual claims, verify each has citation
+  - Fix: Add citations or remove/hedge unsupported claims
+
+- [ ] **Length compliance:** Total word count 500-750
+  - Test: Count words
+  - Fix: If under 500, expand examples/explanations. If over 750, condense or remove tangents
+
+- [ ] **No hallucination:** All facts can be verified or are hedged with uncertainty
+  - Test: Identify factual claims, ask "Am I certain of this?"
+  - Fix: Add "likely", "according to X", or "I don't have current data on this"
+
+- [ ] **Format consistency:** All code examples use ```language syntax```
+  - Test: Find code blocks, check for language tags
+  - Fix: Add language tags to all code blocks
+```
+
+---
+
+## Failure Mode Analysis
+
+**Common prompt problems and diagnoses:**
+
+**Problem: Inconsistent outputs**
+- Diagnosis: Underspecified format or structure
+- Fix: Add explicit output template, numbered steps, format examples
+
+**Problem: Too short/long**
+- Diagnosis: No length constraints
+- Fix: Add min-max word/character counts per section
+
+**Problem: Wrong tone**
+- Diagnosis: Audience not specified
+- Fix: Define target audience, reading level, formality expectations
+
+**Problem: Hallucination**
+- Diagnosis: No uncertainty expression required
+- Fix: Add "If uncertain, say so" + fact-checking requirements
+
+**Problem: Missing key information**
+- Diagnosis: Required elements not explicit
+- Fix: List "Must include: [element 1], [element 2]..."
+
+**Problem: Unsafe/biased content**
+- Diagnosis: No content restrictions
+- Fix: Explicitly prohibit problematic content types, add bias check
+
+**Problem: Poor reasoning**
+- Diagnosis: No intermediate steps required
+- Fix: Require chain-of-thought, show work, numbered reasoning
+
+---
+
+## Testing Protocol
+
+**1. Baseline test (3 runs):**
+- Run prompt 3 times with same input
+- Measure: Are outputs similar in structure, length, quality?
+- Target: >80% consistency
+
+**2. Variation test (5 runs with input variations):**
+- Slightly different inputs (edge cases, different domains)
+- Measure: Does prompt generalize or break?
+- Target: Consistent quality across variations
+
+**3. Failure mode test:**
+- Intentionally trigger known issues
+- Examples: very short input, ambiguous request, edge case
+- Measure: Does prompt handle gracefully?
+- Target: No crashes, reasonable fallback behavior
+
+**4. Consistency metrics:**
+- Length: Standard deviation < 20% of mean
+- Structure: Same sections/format in >90% of outputs
+- Quality: Human rating variance < 1 point on 5-point scale
+
+**5. Refinement cycle:**
+- Identify most common failure (appears in >30% of runs)
+- Add specific constraint or check to address it
+- Retest
+- Repeat until quality threshold met
+
+---
+
+## Advanced Patterns
+
+### Chain-of-Thought Prompting
+```
+Before providing your final answer:
+1. Reason through the problem step-by-step
+2. Show your thinking process
+3. Consider alternative approaches
+4. Only then provide your final recommendation
+
+Format:
+**Reasoning:**
+[Your step-by-step thought process]
+
+**Final Answer:**
+[Your conclusion]
+```
+
+### Self-Consistency Checking
+```
+Generate 3 independent solutions to this problem.
+Compare them for consistency.
+If they differ significantly, identify why and converge on the most robust answer.
+Present your final unified solution.
+```
+
+### Constitutional AI Pattern (safety)
+```
+After generating your response:
+1. Review for potential harms (bias, stereotypes, unsafe advice)
+2. If found, revise to be more balanced/safe
+3. If uncertainty remains, state "This may not be appropriate because..."
+4. Only then provide final output
+```
+
+### Few-Shot with Explanation
+```
+Here are examples with annotations:
+
+Example 1:
+Input: [X]
+Output: [Y]
+Why this is good: [Annotation explaining quality]
+
+Example 2:
+Input: [A]
+Output: [B]
+Why this is good: [Annotation]
+
+Now apply the same principles to: [actual input]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Domain-Specific Templates
+
+### Code Generation
+```
+Role: Senior [language] developer
+Task:
+1. Understand requirements
+2. Design solution (explain approach)
+3. Implement with error handling
+4. Add tests (>80% coverage)
+5. Document with examples
+
+Constraints:
+- Follow [style guide]
+- Handle edge cases: [list]
+- Security: No [vulnerabilities]
+Quality Checks:
+- Compiles/runs without errors
+- Tests pass
+- Handles all edge cases listed
+```
+
+### Content Writing
+```
+Role: [Type] writer for [audience]
+Task:
+1. Hook: Engaging opening
+2. Body: 3-5 main points with examples
+3. Conclusion: Actionable takeaways
+
+Constraints:
+- [Length]
+- [Reading level]
+- [Tone]
+- SEO: Include "[keyword]" naturally
+
+Quality Checks:
+- Hook grabs attention in first 2 sentences
+- Each main point has concrete example
+- Takeaways are actionable (verb-driven)
+```
+
+### Data Analysis
+```
+Role: Data analyst
+Task:
+1. Describe data (shape, types, missingness)
+2. Explore distributions and relationships
+3. Test hypotheses with appropriate statistics
+4. Visualize key findings
+5. Summarize actionable insights
+
+Constraints:
+- Use [tools/libraries]
+- Statistical significance: p<0.05
+- Visualizations: Clear labels, legends
+
+Quality Checks:
+- All analyses justified methodologically
+- Visualizations self-explanatory
+- Insights tied to business/research questions
+```
+
+---
+
+## Quality Checklist
+
+Before finalizing your engineered prompt:
+
+**Structural:**
+- [ ] Role clearly defined with relevant expertise
+- [ ] Objective is specific and measurable
+- [ ] Task broken into 3-7 numbered steps
+- [ ] Each step has clear deliverable
+
+**Constraints:**
+- [ ] Output format explicitly specified
+- [ ] Length requirements stated (if relevant)
+- [ ] Tone/style defined for target audience
+- [ ] Content requirements listed (must include/avoid)
+
+**Quality:**
+- [ ] 3-5 quality checks included
+- [ ] Checks are specific and measurable
+- [ ] Known failure modes addressed
+- [ ] Self-correction instruction included
+
+**Testing:**
+- [ ] Tested 3-5 times for consistency
+- [ ] Consistency >80% across runs
+- [ ] Edge cases handled appropriately
+- [ ] Refined based on failure patterns
+
+**Documentation:**
+- [ ] Examples provided (if format is complex)
+- [ ] Assumptions stated explicitly
+- [ ] Limitations noted
+- [ ] File saved as `meta-prompt-engineering.md`