smithery/patricio0312rev

prompt-template-builder

Creates reusable prompt templates with strict output contracts, style rules, few-shot examples, and do/don't guidelines.

Installation

$ npx skills add smithery/patricio0312rev --skill prompt-template-builder

Summary

  • Creates reusable prompt templates with strict output contracts, style rules, few-shot examples, and do/don't guidelines.
  • Provides system/user prompt files, variable placeholders, output formatting instructions, and quality criteria.
  • Use when building "prompt templates", "LLM prompts", "AI system prompts", or "prompt engineering".

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from smithery/patricio0312rev · top by installs.

npx skills add smithery/patricio0312rev

Browse all from smithery/patricio0312rev

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 9,564 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 362 B

History

  1. First recorded snapshot · 0 installs

SKILL.md

Prompt Template Builder

Build robust, reusable prompt templates with clear contracts and consistent outputs.

Core Components

System Prompt: Role, persona, constraints, output format User Prompt: Task, context, variables, examples Few-Shot Examples: Input/output pairs demonstrating desired behavior Output Contract: Strict format specification (JSON schema, Markdown structure) Style Rules: Tone, verbosity, formatting preferences Guardrails: Do's and don'ts, safety constraints

System Prompt Template

````markdown

System Prompt: Code Review Assistant

You are an expert code reviewer specializing in {language} and {framework}. Your role is to provide constructive, actionable feedback on code quality, best practices, and potential issues.

Output Format

Provide your review in the following JSON structure:

{
  "summary": "Brief 1-2 sentence overview",
  "issues": [
    {
      "severity": "critical|major|minor",
      "line": number,
      "message": "Description of the issue",
      "suggestion": "How to fix it"
    }
  ],
  "strengths": ["List of positive aspects"],
  "overall_score": 1-10
}

````

Style Guidelines

  • Be constructive and specific
  • Cite line numbers for issues
  • Provide actionable suggestions
  • Balance criticism with praise
  • Use professional, respectful tone

Constraints

  • Do NOT suggest unnecessary refactors
  • Do focus on correctness, security, performance
  • Do NOT be overly pedantic about style
  • Do consider the context and project requirements

````

User Prompt Template with Variables

// prompt-templates/code-review.ts
export const codeReviewPrompt = (variables: {
  language: string;
  framework: string;
  code: string;
  context?: string;
}) => `
Please review the following ${variables.language} code:

${variables.context ? `Context: ${variables.context}\n` : ''}

\`\`\`${variables.language}
${variables.code}
\`\`\`

Provide a thorough code review following the output format specified in the system prompt.
`;

// Usage
const prompt = codeReviewPrompt({
  language: 'typescript',
  framework: 'React',
  code: userSubmittedCode,
  context: 'This is a production component for user authentication',
});
````

## Few-Shot Examples

````markdown
# Few-Shot Examples

## Example 1: Good Code

**Input:**

function calculateTotal(items: Item[]): number { return items.reduce((sum, item) => sum + item.price, 0); }

````

**Output:**

{ "summary": "Clean, type-safe implementation with no issues found.", "issues": [], "strengths": [ "Type safety with TypeScript", "Functional approach with reduce", "Clear, descriptive naming" ], "overall_score": 9 }


## Example 2: Code with Issues

**Input:**

function calc(arr) { let total = 0; for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { total = total + arr[i].price; } return total; }


**Output:**

{ "summary": "Functional but has type safety and modern syntax issues.", "issues": [ { "severity": "major", "line": 1, "message": "Missing type annotations for parameters and return value", "suggestion": "Add types: function calc(arr: Item[]): number" }, { "severity": "minor", "line": 3, "message": "Using 'var' instead of 'let' or 'const'", "suggestion": "Replace 'var' with 'let': for (let i = 0; ...)" } ], "strengths": ["Logic is correct", "Handles empty array case"], "overall_score": 6 }


````

## Output Contracts

// Define strict output schema import { z } from 'zod';

export const codeReviewSchema = z.object({ summary: z.string().min(10).max(200), issues: z.array(z.object({ severity: z.enum(['critical', 'major', 'minor']), line: z.number().int().positive(), message: z.string(), suggestion: z.string(), })), strengths: z.array(z.string()), overall_score: z.number().int().min(1).max(10), });

// Validate LLM output export const parseCodeReview = (output: string) => { try { const parsed = JSON.parse(output); return codeReviewSchema.parse(parsed); } catch (error) { throw new Error('Invalid code review output format'); } }; ````

Template Variables

export interface PromptVariables {
  // Required
  required_field: string;

  // Optional with defaults
  optional_field?: string;

  // Constrained values
  severity_level: "low" | "medium" | "high";

  // Numeric with ranges
  max_tokens: number; // 1-4096
}

export const buildPrompt = (vars: PromptVariables): string => {
  // Validate variables
  if (!vars.required_field) {
    throw new Error("required_field is required");
  }

  // Set defaults
  const optional = vars.optional_field ?? "default value";

  // Build prompt
  return `Task: ${vars.required_field}
Options: ${optional}
Severity: ${vars.severity_level}`;
};

Style Rules

## Tone Guidelines

- **Professional**: Formal language, no slang
- **Friendly**: Conversational but respectful
- **Technical**: Precise terminology, assume expertise
- **Educational**: Explain concepts, teach as you go

## Verbosity Levels

- **Concise**: 1-2 sentences, bullet points
- **Standard**: 1 paragraph per point
- **Detailed**: Full explanations with examples
- **Comprehensive**: Deep dive with references

## Formatting Preferences

- Use markdown headers for structure
- Bold important terms
- Code blocks for technical content
- Lists for enumeration
- Tables for comparisons

Do's and Don'ts

## Do's

✓ Provide specific, actionable feedback
✓ Include code examples when relevant
✓ Reference line numbers for issues
✓ Suggest concrete improvements
✓ Balance criticism with praise
✓ Consider context and constraints

## Don'ts

✗ Don't be vague ("this is bad")
✗ Don't suggest unnecessary rewrites
✗ Don't ignore security issues
✗ Don't be overly pedantic
✗ Don't assume unlimited resources
✗ Don't make assumptions without context

Prompt Chaining

// Multi-step prompts
export const chainedPrompts = {
  step1_analyze: (code: string) => `
    Analyze this code and identify potential issues:
    ${code}

    List issues in JSON array format with severity and description.
  `,

  step2_suggest: (issues: Issue[]) => `
    Given these code issues:
    ${JSON.stringify(issues)}

    Provide detailed fix suggestions for each issue.
  `,

  step3_summarize: (suggestions: Suggestion[]) => `
    Summarize these code review suggestions into a final report:
    ${JSON.stringify(suggestions)}
  `,
};

// Execute chain
const issues = await llm(chainedPrompts.step1_analyze(code));
const suggestions = await llm(chainedPrompts.step2_suggest(issues));
const report = await llm(chainedPrompts.step3_summarize(suggestions));

Version Control

// Track prompt versions
export const PROMPT_VERSIONS = {
  "v1.0": {
    system: "Original system prompt...",
    user: (vars) => `Original user prompt...`,
    deprecated: false,
  },
  "v1.1": {
    system: "Improved system prompt with better constraints...",
    user: (vars) => `Updated user prompt...`,
    deprecated: false,
    changes: "Added JSON schema validation, improved examples",
  },
  "v1.0-deprecated": {
    system: "...",
    user: (vars) => `...`,
    deprecated: true,
    deprecation_reason: "Replaced by v1.1 with better output format",
  },
};

// Use specific version
const prompt = PROMPT_VERSIONS["v1.1"];

Testing Prompts

// Test cases for prompt validation
const testCases = [
  {
    input: { code: "function test() {}", language: "javascript" },
    expected: {
      hasIssues: false,
      scoreRange: [8, 10],
    },
  },
  {
    input: { code: "func test(arr) { return arr[0] }", language: "javascript" },
    expected: {
      hasIssues: true,
      minIssues: 2,
      severities: ["major", "minor"],
    },
  },
];

// Run tests
for (const test of testCases) {
  const output = await llm(buildPrompt(test.input));
  const parsed = parseCodeReview(output);

  if (test.expected.hasIssues) {
    assert(parsed.issues.length >= test.expected.minIssues);
  }
  if (test.expected.scoreRange) {
    assert(parsed.overall_score >= test.expected.scoreRange[0]);
    assert(parsed.overall_score <= test.expected.scoreRange[1]);
  }
}

Best Practices

  1. Clear instructions: Be explicit about what you want
  2. Output contracts: Define strict schemas
  3. Few-shot examples: Show, don't just tell
  4. Variable validation: Check inputs before building prompts
  5. Version tracking: Maintain prompt history
  6. Test thoroughly: Validate against edge cases
  7. Iterate: Improve based on real outputs
  8. Document constraints: Explain limitations

Output Checklist

  • System prompt with role and constraints
  • User prompt template with variables
  • Output format specification (JSON schema)
  • 3+ few-shot examples (good and bad)
  • Style guidelines documented
  • Do's and don'ts list
  • Variable validation logic
  • Output parsing/validation
  • Test cases for prompt
  • Version tracking system