Agent skill
prompt-polisher
Use when receiving messy, unstructured input like voice transcriptions, stream-of-consciousness notes, or rough document content that needs to be transformed into a polished, optimized prompt. Cleans up filler words, extracts intent, asks clarifying questions, applies Claude 4.x/Opus 4.5/Sonnet 4.5 best practices, and previews the polished prompt for approval before execution. Trigger phrases include "polish this", "clean this up", "turn this into a prompt", or when input is clearly rough/unstructured.
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/cnfjlhj/ai-collab-playbook/tree/main/skills/full/prompt-polisher
SKILL.md
Prompt Polisher
Transform messy, unstructured input into polished, Claude-optimized prompts using Anthropic's best practices.
When to Activate
Activate this skill when:
- User provides voice transcription content (contains filler words, self-corrections, casual speech)
- User dumps stream-of-consciousness notes
- User pastes rough document content that needs structuring
- User explicitly asks to "polish", "clean up", or "turn this into a prompt"
- Input is clearly unstructured and intended as task instructions
Workflow
Execute these stages in order:
Stage 1: Voice Cleanup
If the input appears to be voice transcription or casual speech, clean it up:
Remove:
- Filler words: "um", "uh", "like", "you know", "basically", "actually", "literally", "right?"
- Self-corrections: "no wait", "I mean", "actually scratch that", "let me rephrase"
- False starts: repeated or abandoned sentence beginnings
- Verbal tics: "okay so", "let me think", "hmm"
Normalize:
- Convert spoken patterns to written form
- Fix run-on sentences
- Add proper punctuation
Stage 2: Intent Extraction
Parse the cleaned input to identify:
| Element | What to Find |
|---|---|
| Core task | What does the user actually want done? |
| Referenced files | Documents, project files, URLs mentioned |
| Constraints | Limitations, requirements, boundaries |
| Preferences | Style, format, approach preferences |
| Success criteria | What does "done" look like? |
| Scope | Single task vs. multi-step project |
Stage 3: Gap Detection
Scan for missing or ambiguous elements:
- Ambiguous requirements ("process them somehow")
- Missing success criteria (no clear definition of "done")
- Unclear scope (single task or multi-step?)
- Format unspecified (code? prose? structured output?)
- Model unknown (Opus 4.5 or Sonnet 4.5?)
- Technical choices undefined (which library/approach/pattern?)
If gaps exist, ask ALL clarifying questions at once:
Before I polish this prompt, I need to clarify a few things:
1. [First gap-specific question]
2. [Second gap-specific question]
3. Which Claude model are you using? (Opus 4.5 / Sonnet 4.5 / Not sure)
Wait for user response before proceeding.
Stage 4: Apply Best Practices
Reference reference.md for detailed guidelines. Apply these transformations:
Universal (Claude 4.x):
- Make instructions explicit and direct (no hints)
- Add contextual framing (explain WHY, not just WHAT)
- Use positive framing ("use prose" not "don't use bullets")
- Structure with XML tags for complex inputs
- Use action-oriented language ("Change this" not "Can you suggest")
- Include chain of thought prompts for complex reasoning
- Define clear success criteria
- Use normal tone (avoid aggressive CAPS/MUST/CRITICAL)
If Opus 4.5:
- Add anti-over-engineering guardrail: "Keep solutions simple. Only make changes directly requested."
- Avoid the word "think" → use "consider", "evaluate", "believe"
- Leverage planning strength: "Build an editable plan before executing"
- Keep prompts token-efficient (don't over-pad)
- Provide policy/constraint context when relevant
If Sonnet 4.5:
- Break complex tasks into explicit steps
- Optimize for speed/throughput
- Add more explicit step-by-step guidance for intricate tasks
Stage 5: Structure the Prompt
Generate the polished prompt using this template:
<context>
[Background info, relevant project context, referenced files, WHY this task matters]
</context>
<task>
[Clear, explicit statement of what needs to be done - action-oriented]
</task>
<requirements>
[Specific constraints, boundaries, must-haves, technical choices]
</requirements>
<success_criteria>
[What "done" looks like, how to verify completion]
</success_criteria>
<approach> <!-- Optional: include for complex tasks -->
[Suggested approach OR "Build an editable plan before executing"]
</approach>
Formatting rules:
- Keep each section focused and concise
- Use bullet points only when listing multiple items
- Omit sections that aren't relevant to the task
- For simple tasks, a streamlined version without XML tags is acceptable
Stage 6: Preview for Approval
Present the polished prompt to the user:
Here's your polished prompt:
---
[POLISHED PROMPT CONTENT]
---
**Options:**
- **Execute** - Run this prompt now
- **Edit** - I'll modify something first
- **Redo** - Start over with different clarifications
Wait for user approval before executing.
Stage 7: Execute or Iterate
Based on user choice:
- Execute: Immediately act on the polished prompt as if the user had typed it directly
- Edit: User modifies the prompt, then re-preview
- Redo: Return to Stage 1 with new input or Stage 3 for new clarifications
Important Notes
- Always preview before executing - never skip the approval step
- If the input is already well-structured, acknowledge this and offer minor polish only
- Learn from user feedback - if they frequently edit a certain way, note the pattern
- For very short/simple inputs, use a streamlined format without full XML structure
- The goal is USEFUL prompts, not LONG prompts - be concise
See Also
- reference.md - Detailed Anthropic best practices for Claude 4.x, Opus 4.5, and Sonnet 4.5
- examples.md - Before/after transformation examples
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
paperreview
Use when the user explicitly wants to upload a final or near-final PDF to paperreview.ai for an external second opinion. Skip this for local paper critique, which should go through `paper-review-pipeline` first.
skill-governance-loop
Use when the user asks to review a skill, analyze skill quality, update a skill version, or run a repeatable keep/disable/archive decision loop from real failures instead of abstract best practices.
academic-paper-helper
学术论文写作助手,专门用于 LaTeX 论文编写、BibTeX 管理、格式化、学术写作规范检查。适用于 AI/ML 研究论文、会议投稿(NeurIPS、ICML、ICLR 等)
collaborating-with-claude
Use when you want Claude Code CLI as a second opinion for coding tasks such as design tradeoffs, debugging, or diff review, while keeping Codex as the primary implementer.
proactive-explorer
落实 CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md 中的“主动探索”原则,在向用户提问前自动使用 Grep、Read、Bash、WebSearch 等工具获取信息
writing-anti-ai
This skill should be used when the user asks to "remove AI writing patterns", "humanize this text", "make this sound more natural", "remove AI-generated traces", "fix robotic writing", or needs to eliminate AI writing patterns from prose. Supports both English and Chinese text. Based on Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing" guide, detects and fixes inflated symbolism, promotional language, superficial -ing analyses, vague attributions, AI vocabulary, negative parallelisms, and excessive conjunctive phrases.
Didn't find tool you were looking for?