Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

prompt-debugger(提示调试器)

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。

prompt-debugger 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为只读;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 39,607。

总安装 1,388周安装 59GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 486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-0
版本
1.0.0

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-debugger(提示调试器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/charlie-morrison/prompt-debugger
安装命令:
openclaw skills install prompt-debugger
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 OpenClaw 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。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install prompt-debugger

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

诊断异常 AI 输出的专用调试提示生成器,定位故障根源。适用于识别歧义指令、冲突规则与模型行为偏差场景。通过对比测试与结果分析揭示潜在问题模式。需配合具体错误现象选择对应的调试策略模板。安装方式:通过 clawhub 平台使用 openclaw skills install prompt-debugger 命令部署。

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 OpenClaw;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 openclaw skills install prompt-debugger;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

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

prompt-debugger 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install prompt-debugger。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

prompt-debugger 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。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。

prompt-debugger 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。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。

prompt-debugger 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。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。

prompt-debugger 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,388 次,近一周安装 59 次,下载 486 次。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。

prompt-debugger 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

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,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。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

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 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、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。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
prompt-debugger

提示调试器 · 本页

1,388—只读MIT-0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

name
prompt-debugger
description
Debug prompts that produce unexpected AI outputs — diagnose failure modes, identify ambiguity and conflicting instructions, test variations, compare model responses, and iteratively improve prompt quality.

Prompt Debugger

When a prompt isn't working as expected, systematically diagnose why and fix it. Identifies common failure patterns (ambiguity, conflicting instructions, missing context, wrong format specification), tests variations, and produces an improved version.

Use when: "why isn't this prompt working", "debug my prompt", "improve this prompt", "the AI keeps doing X instead of Y", "prompt not producing expected output", "prompt optimization", or iterating on system prompts.

Commands

1. diagnose — Analyze a Failing Prompt

Given a prompt and its undesired output, identify the root cause.

Step 1: Structural Analysis

Read the prompt and check for common failure patterns:

Ambiguity Checks:

  • Vague instructions ("make it better", "be more specific", "improve this")
  • Missing output format specification
  • Unclear scope ("analyze this" — analyze what aspect?)
  • Pronoun confusion ("it", "this", "that" without clear referent)
  • Multiple possible interpretations of key terms

Conflict Checks:

  • Contradictory instructions ("be concise" + "explain in detail")
  • Competing priorities without ranking ("be accurate AND fast AND creative")
  • Format conflicts (asking for both structured and freeform output)
  • Tone conflicts ("be professional" + "be casual and fun")
  • Length conflicts (word limits vs. comprehensive coverage)

Context Checks:

  • Missing role/persona specification
  • No examples of desired output
  • Assumed knowledge not stated
  • Missing constraints (length, format, audience, tone)
  • No success criteria ("how would I know if the output is good?")

Instruction Clarity:

  • Nested conditionals that are hard to follow
  • Too many instructions competing for attention
  • Critical instructions buried in the middle
  • Instructions that depend on prior instructions but aren't ordered
  • Implicit assumptions that should be explicit
Step 2: Failure Mode Classification

Categorize the issue:

Failure ModeSymptomsCommon Fix
Instruction FollowingIgnores specific requirementsMove to top, bold, repeat
Format ViolationWrong output structureAdd explicit format example
HallucinationMakes up factsAdd "only use provided info"
Scope CreepAnswers more than askedAdd "only address X, nothing else"
Scope DeficitAnswers less than askedBreak into numbered sub-questions
Tone MismatchWrong voice/registerProvide tone examples
OverthinkingToo verbose/philosophicalAdd "be direct, no preamble"
UnderthinkingToo shallow/genericAdd "think step by step" + require specifics
Context WindowLoses early instructionsRepeat key constraints at end
Step 3: Generate Fix Hypotheses

For each identified issue, propose specific prompt edits:

Issue 1: Ambiguous instruction "analyze the data"
  → Fix: "Analyze the data by calculating the mean, median, and standard deviation for each column. Report any outliers (>2 standard deviations from mean)."

Issue 2: Missing output format
  → Fix: Add "Output format: JSON with keys {summary, findings, recommendations}"

Issue 3: Conflicting constraints
  → Fix: "Prioritize accuracy over brevity. If you must choose between being complete and being concise, be complete."

2. compare — A/B Test Prompt Variations

Generate 3-5 variations of a prompt, each targeting a different failure mode fix.

## Variation A: Original (baseline)
[original prompt]
Expected improvement: none (baseline for comparison)

## Variation B: Explicit format
[prompt + format specification]
Target fix: format violation

## Variation C: Role + examples
[prompt + persona + 2 examples]
Target fix: tone mismatch, underthinking

## Variation D: Constraints tightened
[prompt + explicit constraints + negative examples]
Target fix: scope creep, hallucination

## Variation E: Restructured
[reordered prompt with critical instructions first/last]
Target fix: instruction following

For each variation, explain what was changed and why.

3. rewrite — Produce an Improved Prompt

Apply all identified fixes to produce a single improved prompt.

Rewrite principles:

  1. Critical instructions go first AND last (primacy + recency effects)
  2. One instruction per line/bullet (no compound sentences)
  3. Include 1-2 examples of desired output
  4. Specify what NOT to do (negative examples) for common failure modes
  5. Define success criteria explicitly
  6. Use markdown formatting for structure (headers, bullets, bold for emphasis)
  7. Add explicit output format specification

Before/After format:

### Before
[original prompt — highlight problematic areas]

### After
[improved prompt — annotate what changed and why]

### Changes Made
1. Added role specification ("You are a senior data analyst...")
2. Replaced "analyze" with specific analytical steps
3. Added output format (JSON schema)
4. Moved length constraint to the end (recency)
5. Added negative example ("Do NOT include...")

4. patterns — Common Prompt Patterns Library

Reference of proven prompt patterns for common tasks:

Chain of Thought:

Think through this step by step:
1. First, identify...
2. Then, analyze...
3. Finally, recommend...
Show your reasoning for each step.

Few-Shot:

Here are examples of the expected output:

Input: [example 1 input]
Output: [example 1 output]

Input: [example 2 input]
Output: [example 2 output]

Now process:
Input: [actual input]
Output:

Constraint Sandwich:

[CRITICAL CONSTRAINTS — read first]
[Main task instructions]
[CRITICAL CONSTRAINTS — repeated for emphasis]

Persona + Task + Format:

You are [specific role] with [specific expertise].
Your task is to [specific action] for [specific audience].
Output as [specific format] with [specific requirements].

Self-Verification:

After generating your response, verify:
- Does it address all N requirements?
- Is it under X words?
- Does it follow the specified format?
If not, revise before outputting.

5. score — Rate Prompt Quality

Score a prompt on multiple dimensions (0-10 each):

DimensionScoreAssessment
Clarity7/10Instructions are clear but "analyze" is ambiguous
Specificity4/10Missing format, length, audience
Completeness6/10Has context but no examples
Consistency8/10No conflicting instructions
Testability3/10No success criteria defined
Overall5.6/10Needs format spec and examples

Provide the top 3 improvements that would most increase the score.

6. anti-patterns — Detect Common Prompt Anti-Patterns

Scan a prompt for known problematic patterns:

  • Hedge language: "Try to", "if possible", "maybe", "perhaps" (weakens instructions)
  • Overloading: More than 7 distinct instructions (cognitive load)
  • Vague quantifiers: "some", "several", "a few", "many" (replace with numbers)
  • Double negatives: "don't not include" → "include"
  • Passive voice instructions: "the data should be analyzed" → "analyze the data"
  • Escape hatches: "unless you think otherwise" (invites non-compliance)
  • Meta-instructions: Spending tokens on "you are an AI" preamble
  • Repeat-after-me: Asking the AI to confirm instructions (wastes tokens)

Output Formats

  • text (default): Diagnostic report with annotated prompt
  • json: {diagnosis: {issues: [], failure_modes: [], fixes: []}, rewrite: "", score: {}, anti_patterns: []}
  • markdown: Report suitable for documentation or sharing

Notes

  • Works with any LLM prompt (system prompts, user prompts, agent instructions, SKILL.md files)
  • Does not execute prompts — analyzes structure and content statically
  • Failure mode classification is based on common patterns, not guaranteed causes
  • For best results, provide both the prompt AND an example of the undesired output
  • The rewrite is a starting point — always test with your specific model and use case
  • Different models respond differently to the same prompt — fixes may need model-specific tuning

平台分布

OpenClaw

75.39%
按下载量换算366

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

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。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills