Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

prompt-repetition提示重复

Agent Skill

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。

总安装

569

周安装

23

GitHub Stars

11

下载量

178
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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:prompt-repetition(提示重复)
来源仓库:https://github.com/akillness/skills-template
仓库路径:skills/prompt-repetition
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/akillness/skills-template --skill prompt-repetition
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。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/akillness/skills-template --skill prompt-repetition

简介

用于辅助提示词、系统指令和 Agent 行为约束的整理与优化。

  • 适合规范任务边界、统一输出格式或拆分操作步骤时使用。
  • 通过重复关键内容提升轻量模型对重要信息的识别准确率。
  • 安装命令:npx skills add https://github.com/akillness/skills-template --skill prompt-repetition
  • 涉及自动执行时需明确确认步骤,避免将示例当作硬规则处理

SKILL.md

Prompt Repetition

When to use this skill

  • The user is using a non-reasoning or lightweight model and accuracy drops when the important question appears late in the prompt.
  • The prompt shape is long-context retrieval, options-first multiple choice, or position-sensitive lookup.
  • The user wants a bounded decision rule for whether to duplicate the prompt 2× or 3×, not a vague promise that prompt engineering will help.
  • The workflow needs a cheap experiment before changing models or building retrieval infrastructure.
  • The request mentions things like the model forgot the question, missed the final instruction, lost the item at slot 25, got confused by a long options list, or performs worse on Haiku / Flash / mini models than on stronger reasoning models.

Do not use this skill as the main workflow when:

  • The real problem is context selection, retrieval design, or noisy source stuffing → use broader context-engineering or RAG work.
  • The real problem is reasoning depth and a reasoning-capable model is available.
  • The prompt is tool-heavy / agentic / multi-step, where duplicating the full prompt may just multiply cost and confusion.
  • The user needs a universal always-on middleware policy. This skill is for targeted use, not blanket auto-apply.

Core idea

Prompt repetition is a task-shape-specific intervention, not a universal prompting law.

The strongest evidence-backed cases are:

  1. Long-context retrieval — the question comes after a lot of context and the model misses late details.
  2. Options-first MCQ — choices appear before the question or the structure makes the actual ask easy to lose.
  3. Position-sensitive lookup — inventories, ordered lists, or record positions where the model loses track of index-like detail.

The skill succeeds when it answers three questions clearly:

  1. Is this one of the task shapes where repetition is worth testing?
  2. What repetition count is safe enough to try without blowing the context budget?
  3. What should we do instead if repetition is the wrong tool?

Instructions

Step 1: Classify the prompt shape before changing anything

Put the current prompt into one bucket:

ShapeTypical signalRepetition fitBetter alternative if fit is weak
Long-context retrieval"The model ignores the question after a huge context block"GoodTrim/select context, retrieval, restate question near end
Options-first MCQ"The options come first and the model picks the wrong letter"GoodReorder question/options, simplify answer format
Position-sensitive lookup"It misses item 25 in a long list"GoodChunk the list, provide structured table, use retrieval
Tool-heavy agent prompt"There are many tools, policies, and steps"WeakSimplify policy, separate stages, use better orchestration
Reasoning-heavy task"We need step-by-step synthesis or planning"WeakUse a reasoning model, decomposition, examples
RAG / search architecture"The retrieved evidence is noisy or incomplete"WeakFix retrieval, ranking, chunking, context packing

If the task lands in a weak row, do not recommend prompt repetition as the main answer.

Step 2: Check the model and cost guardrail

Prompt repetition multiplies input tokens, even if the paper reports no increase in generated output length or latency for the tested runs.

Minimum checks:

  • Model class — is this a non-reasoning / lightweight model or a stronger reasoning-capable model?
  • Prompt length now — estimate whether 2× or 3× would still fit comfortably inside the usable context budget.
  • Operational budget — is extra input cost acceptable for this workflow?
  • Failure mode — are we fixing a late-context miss, or is the task actually about reasoning or retrieval quality?

Conservative default:

  • if the prompt is already near the context limit, do not recommend full repetition
  • if the task needs structured reasoning, do not use repetition as a substitute for model choice
  • if only the final question/instruction matters, try restating the question before duplicating the whole prompt

Step 3: Choose the smallest useful intervention

Use the cheapest intervention that matches the failure:

  1. Repeat the question only

- Best when the context is huge but only the final ask is being lost. - Cheapest first experiment.

  1. Repeat the full prompt 2×

- Default experiment for long-context retrieval and options-first MCQ on lightweight models. - Good first pass when the whole prompt structure matters.

  1. Repeat the full prompt 3×

- Reserve for clearly position-sensitive or index-heavy tasks. - Only if the cost and context window are still safe.

If the user cannot afford the input-token overhead, route to prompt restructuring or retrieval instead.

Step 4: Apply explicit opt-out rules

Do not recommend repetition when any of these are true:

  • the user already has a good reasoning model and the failure is multi-step reasoning
  • the prompt includes many tools, policies, or action constraints that would just be duplicated noisily
  • the retrieval set is weak, contradictory, or irrelevant
  • the context budget is already tight enough that duplication risks truncation or degraded performance
  • the task can be fixed more cleanly by moving the question, reducing context, or adding a small example

Step 5: Return a decision, not just a trick

A good answer should include:

  1. Fit — why repetition is or is not appropriate here
  2. Smallest recommended intervention — repeat question only, full prompt 2×, full prompt 3×, or do not use repetition
  3. Budget note — input-token / context-window implication
  4. Fallback / route-out — what to do instead if repetition is the wrong tool

Use this response shape:

"This is a [good / weak] fit for prompt repetition because [task shape]. I would try [smallest intervention] first. Watch [token/context risk]. If that fails, switch to [better alternative]."

Step 6: Keep evaluation narrow and comparable

When testing repetition:

  • use the same prompt except for the repetition change
  • compare baseline vs 2× vs 3× only when the budget allows
  • judge success on task accuracy, not on style or length alone
  • stop if the repeated prompt causes context pressure or obvious prompt bloat

If more than one change is needed, repetition is probably not the main lever.

Step 7: Route out when another job starts

  • Context selection / retrieval / chunking / source quality → broader context-engineering or RAG work
  • Reasoning-heavy synthesis / planning → stronger reasoning model or decomposition workflow
  • Prompt examples / output-format steering → few-shot or prompt-structure work
  • Tool-policy / action-constraint confusion → simplify orchestration instead of duplicating the whole prompt

Examples

Example 1: Options-first MCQ on a lightweight model

Prompt:

I have a long options-first multiple-choice prompt on a Flash model. Should I duplicate the prompt or restructure it?

Good response shape:

  • classify as options-first MCQ
  • recommend either question restatement or full prompt 2× as the first bounded experiment
  • mention token-cost tradeoff
  • note that reordering the prompt is a valid structural alternative

Example 2: RAG quality complaint

Prompt:

Our RAG answers are weak. Should we add prompt repetition everywhere?

Good response shape:

  • say this is a weak fit
  • explain that retrieval/context quality is the bigger lever
  • route to context engineering or RAG fixes instead of blanket repetition

Example 3: Position-sensitive inventory lookup

Prompt:

A mini model keeps missing the item at slot 25 in a long inventory list.

Good response shape:

  • classify as position-sensitive lookup
  • allow 2× and possibly 3× repetition if budget permits
  • mention structured-table or chunking fallback if cost is too high

Example 4: Reasoning model question

Prompt:

We have a reasoning-capable model available, but it is more expensive. Does prompt repetition replace it?

Good response shape:

  • say no, repetition is not a substitute for reasoning ability
  • limit repetition to targeted non-reasoning failure modes
  • route multi-step reasoning to the stronger model or decomposition

Best practices

  1. Treat prompt repetition as a targeted experiment, not default middleware.
  2. Start with the smallest intervention that matches the failure mode.
  3. Always mention input-token cost and context-budget pressure.
  4. Prefer prompt restructuring or retrieval fixes when the real issue is context quality.
  5. Drop weakly evidenced claims instead of letting the skill become a generic prompt-hacks bucket.
  6. Keep the final recommendation binary: try repetition here or route elsewhere.

References

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

36.79%
按下载量换算65

Claude

28.8%
按下载量换算51

Cursor

16.93%
按下载量换算30

Gemini CLI

8.97%
按下载量换算16

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills