Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · AI 工具

ai-prompting(AI 提示)

用于辅助提示词、系统指令、Agent 行为约束和工作流模板的整理。它适合让 Agent 规范任务边界、统一输出格式、拆分操作步骤或优化提示词可复用性。使用时需要保留真实业务约束,不要把示例当硬规则;涉及自动执行、外部工具或高风险操作时,应在提示词中明确确认步骤、权限边界和失败处理方式。

ai-prompting 是AI 工具类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为操作浏览器;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在AI 工具类的 2,536 个 Skill 里排第 1,347。

总安装 816周安装 33GitHub Stars 636下载 256核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ai-prompting(AI 提示)
来源仓库:https://github.com/jasonkneen/kiro
仓库路径:skills/ai-prompting
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/jasonkneen/kiro --skill ai-prompting
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/jasonkneen/kiro --skill ai-prompting

这个 Skill 是做什么的

AI 工具类 Skill 用来扩展助手本身的能力,例如接模型、接检索、接外部服务。

AI 提示策略库提炼高效人机协作的核心沟通技巧,适用于各类 AI 编程辅助场景。提供上下文优先、示例驱动、错误导向等六大策略,显著提升 spec 生成与迭代效率。强调通过最小可验证单元快速试错,避免一次性提交过于宽泛的需求描述。使用前应根据任务类型选择对应策略组合,如文档编写侧重背景铺垫,调试则需错误日志聚焦。

建议建立个人提示词知识库,积累成功模式并标注适用边界防止误用扩散。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ai-prompting

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/jasonkneen/kiro --skill ai-prompting;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要操作浏览器,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

ai-prompting 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/jasonkneen/kiro --skill ai-prompting。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ai-prompting 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

ai-prompting 需要什么权限?

权限级别是操作浏览器。该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

ai-prompting 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

ai-prompting 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 816 次,近一周安装 33 次,下载 256 次,GitHub 636 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

ai-prompting 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理AI 工具类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

AI 工具类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
executing-plans

执行计划 · Codex、Claude

1,515,336173,110只读MIT通过
verification-before-completion

完成前的验证 · Codex、Claude

1,319,472173,121权限未标注MIT通过
subagent-driven-development

子 Agent 驱动开发 · Codex、Claude

1,312,416173,138只读MIT通过
copy-editing

复制编辑 · Codex、Claude

1,209,57625,632只读MIT通过
paywall-upgrade-cro

付费专区升级 cro · Codex、Claude

1,030,17625,617只读MIT通过
ai-prompting

AI 提示 · 本页

816636操作浏览器MIT通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

AI Prompting Strategies

Master the art of communicating with AI coding assistants to get better results faster. These strategies are optimized for spec-driven development but apply broadly to AI collaboration.

When to Use This Skill

Use these prompting strategies when:

  • Working with Claude Code, Cursor, or other AI assistants
  • Creating specs through AI collaboration
  • Getting inconsistent or low-quality AI responses
  • Need to improve AI output accuracy
  • Want faster iteration cycles

Core Strategies

Strategy 1: Context-First Prompting

Always provide sufficient context before making requests.

Poor Approach:

Create requirements for a user profile feature.

Better Approach:

I'm working on a web application for a fitness tracking platform. We need to add user profile functionality where users can manage their personal information and fitness goals.

Context:
- Technology: React frontend, Node.js backend
- User base: Health-conscious individuals, age 18-65
- Key constraint: Must comply with GDPR for EU users
- Integration: Will connect with existing authentication system

Please help me create requirements for the user profile feature.

Why It Works:

  • Provides domain context for better decisions
  • Identifies technical constraints early
  • Clarifies compliance requirements
  • Enables more relevant suggestions

Strategy 2: Phased Interaction

Work through spec phases sequentially. Complete each phase before moving to the next.

Phase 1 - Requirements:

Let's start with the requirements phase for [feature name].

Current situation: [describe current state]
Problem to solve: [describe the problem]
Users affected: [describe user types]
Success criteria: [how we'll know it works]

Please help me develop comprehensive requirements using the EARS format.

Phase 2 - Design (after requirements approved):

Now that we have clear requirements, let's create the technical design.

Requirements summary: [key requirements]
Technical context: [architecture, frameworks, patterns]
Constraints: [performance, scalability, security]

Please propose a technical design that addresses these requirements.

Phase 3 - Tasks (after design approved):

With the design finalized, let's break this into implementation tasks.

Design summary: [key components and interactions]
Team context: [team size, skill levels]
Dependencies: [what must be built first]

Please create a sequenced task breakdown for implementation.

Strategy 3: Iterative Refinement

Treat spec development as conversation, not single requests.

Initial Request:

Help me define requirements for email notification preferences.

Refinement Round 1:

Great start! Let's refine a few areas:
1. For notification frequency, can we add daily digest option?
2. How should we handle changing preferences during pending notifications?
3. Can you elaborate on the unsubscribe requirement for GDPR compliance?

Refinement Round 2:

Perfect. Now let's add requirements for:
- Mobile push notifications (in addition to email)
- Notification history (last 30 days)
- Per-notification-type controls (not just global on/off)

Strategy 4: Example-Driven Prompting

Provide concrete examples of what you want.

For Requirements:

I need acceptance criteria for a file upload feature. Use the EARS format like this example:

Good example from our auth feature:
"WHEN a user enters valid credentials THEN the system SHALL authenticate within 2 seconds"

Avoid vague requirements like:
"System should handle file uploads efficiently"

Focus on specific, testable criteria for:
- File size limits
- Supported file types
- Upload progress indication
- Error handling

For Design:

Create a component architecture. Follow this existing pattern:

[Reference existing architecture]

Key elements to include:
- Component responsibilities
- Data flow
- API boundaries
- Error handling paths

Strategy 5: Constraint-Explicit Prompting

Make all constraints explicit. Don't assume AI knows your limitations.

Design a caching strategy for product catalog data.

Explicit constraints:
- Infrastructure: AWS with Redis, PostgreSQL
- Performance: API response < 200ms for cached data
- Scale: 10,000 products, 1,000 concurrent users
- Budget: Cache cost < $100/month
- Freshness: Updates visible within 5 minutes
- Maintenance: 2-person ops team

Flexibility allowed:
- Cache invalidation strategy (time or event-based)
- Cache key structure (optimize as needed)
- Failover approach (as long as reliable)

Strategy 6: Role-Based Prompting

Frame requests from specific perspectives.

Product Owner Perspective:

As a product owner defining checkout requirements:
- Business goals: Reduce cart abandonment
- User value: Smooth, trustworthy purchase experience
- Success metrics: Checkout completion rate > 80%

What requirements should I capture?

Technical Lead Perspective:

As tech lead designing a notification system:
- Integrates with existing microservices
- Handles 100k notifications/day with room to grow
- Maintains health if notification service fails
- Aligns with event-driven architecture

What design approach would you recommend?

Developer Perspective:

As a mid-level developer implementing this:
- Need clear tasks (2-4 hours each)
- Explicit dependencies between tasks
- Guidance on testing approach
- References to existing code patterns

Can you break down the implementation accordingly?

Strategy 7: Validation-Oriented Prompting

Build quality checks into your prompts.

After Requirements:

Review these requirements and check:
1. Are all requirements testable and measurable?
2. Have we covered error cases and edge cases?
3. Do any requirements conflict with each other?
4. Are there gaps in the user journey?
5. Do requirements map to all user stories?

Provide a validation summary.

After Design:

Validate this design against:
1. Does it address all requirements?
2. Are there single points of failure?
3. What are the performance bottlenecks?
4. How does it handle scale growth?
5. What security concerns exist?

Provide a critical review.

Strategy 8: Trade-Off Exploration

Explore options rather than seeking single answers.

We need real-time notifications. Compare these options:

Option A: WebSocket connections
Option B: Server-Sent Events (SSE)
Option C: Long polling

For each, evaluate:
- Implementation complexity
- Browser compatibility
- Server resource usage
- Scalability characteristics
- Maintenance overhead

Present trade-offs in a comparison table.

Phase-Specific Patterns

Requirements Phase Patterns

User Story Expansion:

I have this user story: [basic story]

Please help me:
1. Expand with detailed acceptance criteria (EARS format)
2. Identify edge cases and error scenarios
3. Define non-functional requirements
4. Suggest validation criteria

Completeness Check:

Here are my draft requirements: [requirements]

Check for completeness:
- Are all user workflows covered?
- Have we addressed error handling?
- Are there accessibility requirements?
- What about data privacy and security?
- Have we considered mobile vs desktop?

Design Phase Patterns

Architecture Exploration:

Given these requirements: [summary]

Propose 2-3 different architectural approaches:
1. For each, describe components and interactions
2. List pros and cons
3. Identify risks and mitigations
4. Estimate complexity

Help me compare and choose.

Integration Design:

This feature integrates with: [list systems]

Design the integration:
1. Define API contracts
2. Specify data flow and transformation
3. Plan error handling and retries
4. Document assumptions and dependencies

Tasks Phase Patterns

Task Sequencing:

Based on this design: [summary]

Create implementation tasks that:
1. Are sequenced to minimize dependencies
2. Enable incremental testing
3. Separate setup, core features, and polish
4. Include testing tasks
5. Range from 2-4 hours each

Task Validation:

Review these tasks: [task list]

Verify:
1. Can each task be completed independently?
2. Are dependencies clearly marked?
3. Do tasks map to design components?
4. Are testing steps included?
5. Is anything missing?

Advanced Techniques

Specification by Example

Provide examples of good and bad outputs to calibrate responses.

Incremental Context Building

Start broad, add detail as AI demonstrates understanding.

Meta-Prompting

Ask AI how to prompt it better for your specific context.

Comparative Prompting

Present multiple versions, ask which is better and why.

Common Mistakes

  1. Too little context: AI can't read your mind
  2. All at once: Work in phases, not giant prompts
  3. Accept first response: Iterate and refine
  4. No examples: Show what you want
  5. Hidden constraints: Make limitations explicit
  6. Skip validation: Always verify outputs

Quick Reference

Starting a spec:

I'm working on [project]. We need [feature].
Context: [tech stack, constraints, users]
Please help me develop [requirements/design/tasks].

Refining output:

Good progress. Let's improve:
1. [Specific area to expand]
2. [Missing element to add]
3. [Clarification needed]

Validating output:

Review this [document] and identify:
- Missing elements
- Ambiguities
- Conflicts
- Quality issues

Exploring options:

Compare these approaches: [options]
Evaluate: [criteria]
Present trade-offs for decision-making.

平台分布

Claude Code

29.91%
按下载量换算77

Codex

23.95%
按下载量换算61

OpenCode

18.39%
按下载量换算47

Antigravity

12.62%
按下载量换算32

Gemini CLI

8.71%
按下载量换算22

Cursor

3.7%
按下载量换算9

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

继续浏览同类 Skills