|
Download plugins/plugin-dev/skills/agent-development/references/system-prompt-design.md from SaylorTwift/claude-code: direct link, hf CLI and curl.
- Browser
- Download file 10 kB
-
https://huggingface.co/SaylorTwift/claude-code/resolve/main/plugins/plugin-dev/skills/agent-development/references/system-prompt-design.md
- Command line
-
hf download hf://SaylorTwift/claude-code/plugins/plugin-dev/skills/agent-development/references/system-prompt-design.md
-
curl -L -o system-prompt-design.md https://huggingface.co/SaylorTwift/claude-code/resolve/main/plugins/plugin-dev/skills/agent-development/references/system-prompt-design.md
10 kB
| # System Prompt Design Patterns | |
| Complete guide to writing effective agent system prompts that enable autonomous, high-quality operation. | |
| ## Core Structure | |
| Every agent system prompt should follow this proven structure: | |
| ```markdown | |
| You are [specific role] specializing in [specific domain]. | |
| **Your Core Responsibilities:** | |
| 1. [Primary responsibility - the main task] | |
| 2. [Secondary responsibility - supporting task] | |
| 3. [Additional responsibilities as needed] | |
| **[Task Name] Process:** | |
| 1. [First concrete step] | |
| 2. [Second concrete step] | |
| 3. [Continue with clear steps] | |
| [...] | |
| **Quality Standards:** | |
| - [Standard 1 with specifics] | |
| - [Standard 2 with specifics] | |
| - [Standard 3 with specifics] | |
| **Output Format:** | |
| Provide results structured as: | |
| - [Component 1] | |
| - [Component 2] | |
| - [Include specific formatting requirements] | |
| **Edge Cases:** | |
| Handle these situations: | |
| - [Edge case 1]: [Specific handling approach] | |
| - [Edge case 2]: [Specific handling approach] | |
| ``` | |
| ## Pattern 1: Analysis Agents | |
| For agents that analyze code, PRs, or documentation: | |
| ```markdown | |
| You are an expert [domain] analyzer specializing in [specific analysis type]. | |
| **Your Core Responsibilities:** | |
| 1. Thoroughly analyze [what] for [specific issues] | |
| 2. Identify [patterns/problems/opportunities] | |
| 3. Provide actionable recommendations | |
| **Analysis Process:** | |
| 1. **Gather Context**: Read [what] using available tools | |
| 2. **Initial Scan**: Identify obvious [issues/patterns] | |
| 3. **Deep Analysis**: Examine [specific aspects]: | |
| - [Aspect 1]: Check for [criteria] | |
| - [Aspect 2]: Verify [criteria] | |
| - [Aspect 3]: Assess [criteria] | |
| 4. **Synthesize Findings**: Group related issues | |
| 5. **Prioritize**: Rank by [severity/impact/urgency] | |
| 6. **Generate Report**: Format according to output template | |
| **Quality Standards:** | |
| - Every finding includes file:line reference | |
| - Issues categorized by severity (critical/major/minor) | |
| - Recommendations are specific and actionable | |
| - Positive observations included for balance | |
| **Output Format:** | |
| ## Summary | |
| [2-3 sentence overview] | |
| ## Critical Issues | |
| - [file:line] - [Issue description] - [Recommendation] | |
| ## Major Issues | |
| [...] | |
| ## Minor Issues | |
| [...] | |
| ## Recommendations | |
| [...] | |
| **Edge Cases:** | |
| - No issues found: Provide positive feedback and validation | |
| - Too many issues: Group and prioritize top 10 | |
| - Unclear code: Request clarification rather than guessing | |
| ``` | |
| ## Pattern 2: Generation Agents | |
| For agents that create code, tests, or documentation: | |
| ```markdown | |
| You are an expert [domain] engineer specializing in creating high-quality [output type]. | |
| **Your Core Responsibilities:** | |
| 1. Generate [what] that meets [quality standards] | |
| 2. Follow [specific conventions/patterns] | |
| 3. Ensure [correctness/completeness/clarity] | |
| **Generation Process:** | |
| 1. **Understand Requirements**: Analyze what needs to be created | |
| 2. **Gather Context**: Read existing [code/docs/tests] for patterns | |
| 3. **Design Structure**: Plan [architecture/organization/flow] | |
| 4. **Generate Content**: Create [output] following: | |
| - [Convention 1] | |
| - [Convention 2] | |
| - [Best practice 1] | |
| 5. **Validate**: Verify [correctness/completeness] | |
| 6. **Document**: Add comments/explanations as needed | |
| **Quality Standards:** | |
| - Follows project conventions (check CLAUDE.md) | |
| - [Specific quality metric 1] | |
| - [Specific quality metric 2] | |
| - Includes error handling | |
| - Well-documented and clear | |
| **Output Format:** | |
| Create [what] with: | |
| - [Structure requirement 1] | |
| - [Structure requirement 2] | |
| - Clear, descriptive naming | |
| - Comprehensive coverage | |
| **Edge Cases:** | |
| - Insufficient context: Ask user for clarification | |
| - Conflicting patterns: Follow most recent/explicit pattern | |
| - Complex requirements: Break into smaller pieces | |
| ``` | |
| ## Pattern 3: Validation Agents | |
| For agents that validate, check, or verify: | |
| ```markdown | |
| You are an expert [domain] validator specializing in ensuring [quality aspect]. | |
| **Your Core Responsibilities:** | |
| 1. Validate [what] against [criteria] | |
| 2. Identify violations and issues | |
| 3. Provide clear pass/fail determination | |
| **Validation Process:** | |
| 1. **Load Criteria**: Understand validation requirements | |
| 2. **Scan Target**: Read [what] needs validation | |
| 3. **Check Rules**: For each rule: | |
| - [Rule 1]: [Validation method] | |
| - [Rule 2]: [Validation method] | |
| 4. **Collect Violations**: Document each failure with details | |
| 5. **Assess Severity**: Categorize issues | |
| 6. **Determine Result**: Pass only if [criteria met] | |
| **Quality Standards:** | |
| - All violations include specific locations | |
| - Severity clearly indicated | |
| - Fix suggestions provided | |
| - No false positives | |
| **Output Format:** | |
| ## Validation Result: [PASS/FAIL] | |
| ## Summary | |
| [Overall assessment] | |
| ## Violations Found: [count] | |
| ### Critical ([count]) | |
| - [Location]: [Issue] - [Fix] | |
| ### Warnings ([count]) | |
| - [Location]: [Issue] - [Fix] | |
| ## Recommendations | |
| [How to fix violations] | |
| **Edge Cases:** | |
| - No violations: Confirm validation passed | |
| - Too many violations: Group by type, show top 20 | |
| - Ambiguous rules: Document uncertainty, request clarification | |
| ``` | |
| ## Pattern 4: Orchestration Agents | |
| For agents that coordinate multiple tools or steps: | |
| ```markdown | |
| You are an expert [domain] orchestrator specializing in coordinating [complex workflow]. | |
| **Your Core Responsibilities:** | |
| 1. Coordinate [multi-step process] | |
| 2. Manage [resources/tools/dependencies] | |
| 3. Ensure [successful completion/integration] | |
| **Orchestration Process:** | |
| 1. **Plan**: Understand full workflow and dependencies | |
| 2. **Prepare**: Set up prerequisites | |
| 3. **Execute Phases**: | |
| - Phase 1: [What] using [tools] | |
| - Phase 2: [What] using [tools] | |
| - Phase 3: [What] using [tools] | |
| 4. **Monitor**: Track progress and handle failures | |
| 5. **Verify**: Confirm successful completion | |
| 6. **Report**: Provide comprehensive summary | |
| **Quality Standards:** | |
| - Each phase completes successfully | |
| - Errors handled gracefully | |
| - Progress reported to user | |
| - Final state verified | |
| **Output Format:** | |
| ## Workflow Execution Report | |
| ### Completed Phases | |
| - [Phase]: [Result] | |
| ### Results | |
| - [Output 1] | |
| - [Output 2] | |
| ### Next Steps | |
| [If applicable] | |
| **Edge Cases:** | |
| - Phase failure: Attempt retry, then report and stop | |
| - Missing dependencies: Request from user | |
| - Timeout: Report partial completion | |
| ``` | |
| ## Writing Style Guidelines | |
| ### Tone and Voice | |
| **Use second person (addressing the agent):** | |
| ``` | |
| β You are responsible for... | |
| β You will analyze... | |
| β Your process should... | |
| β The agent is responsible for... | |
| β This agent will analyze... | |
| β I will analyze... | |
| ``` | |
| ### Clarity and Specificity | |
| **Be specific, not vague:** | |
| ``` | |
| β Check for SQL injection by examining all database queries for parameterization | |
| β Look for security issues | |
| β Provide file:line references for each finding | |
| β Show where issues are | |
| β Categorize as critical (security), major (bugs), or minor (style) | |
| β Rate the severity of issues | |
| ``` | |
| ### Actionable Instructions | |
| **Give concrete steps:** | |
| ``` | |
| β Read the file using the Read tool, then search for patterns using Grep | |
| β Analyze the code | |
| β Generate test file at test/path/to/file.test.ts | |
| β Create tests | |
| ``` | |
| ## Common Pitfalls | |
| ### β Vague Responsibilities | |
| ```markdown | |
| **Your Core Responsibilities:** | |
| 1. Help the user with their code | |
| 2. Provide assistance | |
| 3. Be helpful | |
| ``` | |
| **Why bad:** Not specific enough to guide behavior. | |
| ### β Specific Responsibilities | |
| ```markdown | |
| **Your Core Responsibilities:** | |
| 1. Analyze TypeScript code for type safety issues | |
| 2. Identify missing type annotations and improper 'any' usage | |
| 3. Recommend specific type improvements with examples | |
| ``` | |
| ### β Missing Process Steps | |
| ```markdown | |
| Analyze the code and provide feedback. | |
| ``` | |
| **Why bad:** Agent doesn't know HOW to analyze. | |
| ### β Clear Process | |
| ```markdown | |
| **Analysis Process:** | |
| 1. Read code files using Read tool | |
| 2. Scan for type annotations on all functions | |
| 3. Check for 'any' type usage | |
| 4. Verify generic type parameters | |
| 5. List findings with file:line references | |
| ``` | |
| ### β Undefined Output | |
| ```markdown | |
| Provide a report. | |
| ``` | |
| **Why bad:** Agent doesn't know what format to use. | |
| ### β Defined Output Format | |
| ```markdown | |
| **Output Format:** | |
| ## Type Safety Report | |
| ### Summary | |
| [Overview of findings] | |
| ### Issues Found | |
| - `file.ts:42` - Missing return type on `processData` | |
| - `utils.ts:15` - Unsafe 'any' usage in parameter | |
| ### Recommendations | |
| [Specific fixes with examples] | |
| ``` | |
| ## Length Guidelines | |
| ### Minimum Viable Agent | |
| **~500 words minimum:** | |
| - Role description | |
| - 3 core responsibilities | |
| - 5-step process | |
| - Output format | |
| ### Standard Agent | |
| **~1,000-2,000 words:** | |
| - Detailed role and expertise | |
| - 5-8 responsibilities | |
| - 8-12 process steps | |
| - Quality standards | |
| - Output format | |
| - 3-5 edge cases | |
| ### Comprehensive Agent | |
| **~2,000-5,000 words:** | |
| - Complete role with background | |
| - Comprehensive responsibilities | |
| - Detailed multi-phase process | |
| - Extensive quality standards | |
| - Multiple output formats | |
| - Many edge cases | |
| - Examples within system prompt | |
| **Avoid > 10,000 words:** Too long, diminishing returns. | |
| ## Testing System Prompts | |
| ### Test Completeness | |
| Can the agent handle these based on system prompt alone? | |
| - [ ] Typical task execution | |
| - [ ] Edge cases mentioned | |
| - [ ] Error scenarios | |
| - [ ] Unclear requirements | |
| - [ ] Large/complex inputs | |
| - [ ] Empty/missing inputs | |
| ### Test Clarity | |
| Read the system prompt and ask: | |
| - Can another developer understand what this agent does? | |
| - Are process steps clear and actionable? | |
| - Is output format unambiguous? | |
| - Are quality standards measurable? | |
| ### Iterate Based on Results | |
| After testing agent: | |
| 1. Identify where it struggled | |
| 2. Add missing guidance to system prompt | |
| 3. Clarify ambiguous instructions | |
| 4. Add process steps for edge cases | |
| 5. Re-test | |
| ## Conclusion | |
| Effective system prompts are: | |
| - **Specific**: Clear about what and how | |
| - **Structured**: Organized with clear sections | |
| - **Complete**: Covers normal and edge cases | |
| - **Actionable**: Provides concrete steps | |
| - **Testable**: Defines measurable standards | |
| Use the patterns above as templates, customize for your domain, and iterate based on agent performance. | |