Prompt templates, few-shot examples, chain-of-thought, structured output, evals
npx skills add https://github.com/vibeeval/vibecosystem --skill prompt-engineering
SYSTEM_PROMPT = """You are a {role} specialized in {domain}.
## Task
{task_description}
## Rules
{numbered_rules}
## Output Format
{format_spec}
## Examples
{few_shot_examples}
"""
def build_few_shot_prompt(task: str, examples: list[dict], query: str) -> str:
prompt = f"Task: {task}\n\n"
for i, ex in enumerate(examples, 1):
prompt += f"Example {i}:\nInput: {ex['input']}\nOutput: {ex['output']}\n\n"
prompt += f"Now process:\nInput: {query}\nOutput:"
return prompt
# Usage
examples = [
{"input": "The food was great", "output": '{"sentiment": "positive", "confidence": 0.95}'},
{"input": "Terrible service", "output": '{"sentiment": "negative", "confidence": 0.90}'},
{"input": "It was okay", "output": '{"sentiment": "neutral", "confidence": 0.70}'},
]
prompt = build_few_shot_prompt("Classify sentiment as JSON", examples, "Really loved it!")
Analyze this code for security vulnerabilities.
Think step by step:
1. Identify all user inputs
2. Trace each input through the code
3. Check if any input reaches a sensitive operation without sanitization
4. For each vulnerability found, classify severity (critical/high/medium/low)
5. Suggest a fix for each vulnerability
Code:
{code}
import json
from collections import Counter
async def self_consistent_answer(question: str, n_paths: int = 5) -> str:
answers = []
for _ in range(n_paths):
response = await llm.generate(
f"Think step by step and answer: {question}\n\nFinal answer:",
temperature=0.7, # Higher temp for diversity
)
final = extract_final_answer(response)
answers.append(final)
# Majority vote
most_common = Counter(answers).most_common(1)[0][0]
return most_common
from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
from openai import OpenAI
class CodeReview(BaseModel):
issues: list[dict] = Field(description="List of issues found")
severity: str = Field(description="Overall severity: low|medium|high|critical")
summary: str = Field(description="One-line summary")
suggestions: list[str] = Field(description="Improvement suggestions")
client = OpenAI()
response = client.beta.chat.completions.parse(
model="gpt-4o",
messages=[
{"role": "system", "content": "Review code and output structured analysis."},
{"role": "user", "content": f"Review this code:\n```\n{code}\n```"},
],
response_format=CodeReview,
)
review = response.choices[0].message.parsed
<task>Analyze the following error log and extract structured information.</task>
<rules>
- Extract timestamp, severity, service name, and error message
- Classify root cause category
- Output in the specified XML format
</rules>
<input>
{error_log}
</input>
<output_format>
<analysis>
<timestamp>ISO 8601</timestamp>
<severity>ERROR|WARN|FATAL</severity>
<service>service name</service>
<message>error message</message>
<root_cause>category</root_cause>
<suggested_fix>actionable fix</suggested_fix>
</analysis>
</output_format>
class PromptEvaluator:
def __init__(self, test_cases: list[dict]):
self.test_cases = test_cases # [{"input": ..., "expected": ..., "criteria": ...}]
async def evaluate(self, prompt_template: str) -> dict:
results = []
for case in self.test_cases:
prompt = prompt_template.format(**case["input"])
output = await llm.generate(prompt)
score = self._score(output, case["expected"], case.get("criteria", {}))
results.append({"input": case["input"], "output": output, "score": score})
return {
"avg_score": sum(r["score"] for r in results) / len(results),
"pass_rate": sum(1 for r in results if r["score"] >= 0.8) / len(results),
"failures": [r for r in results if r["score"] < 0.8],
}
def _score(self, output: str, expected: str, criteria: dict) -> float:
scores = []
if "contains" in criteria:
scores.append(1.0 if criteria["contains"] in output else 0.0)
if "format" in criteria:
scores.append(1.0 if self._check_format(output, criteria["format"]) else 0.0)
if "max_length" in criteria:
scores.append(1.0 if len(output) <= criteria["max_length"] else 0.0)
return sum(scores) / len(scores) if scores else 0.5
Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.
Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Claude's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.
Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Claude's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.
Replace with description of the skill and when Claude should use it.
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
This skill should be used when the user wants to "create a skill", "add a skill to plugin", "write a new skill", "improve skill description", "organize skill content", or needs guidance on skill structure, progressive disclosure, or skill development best practices for Claude Code plugins.
Helps users discover and install agent skills when they ask questions like "how do I do X", "find a skill for X", "is there a skill that can...", or express interest in extending capabilities. This skill should be used when the user is looking for functionality that might exist as an installable skill.
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
Take vibeeval/prompt-engineering from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.