Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

creating-prompts

Creates GitHub Copilot prompt files (`.prompt.md`) for VS Code. Use when building reusable workflow starters that route work to the right agent, collect the right inputs, and ship with install-ready templates, examples, and validation guidance.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118 stars(GitHub 118 + cccskills 0)
Works withGitHub

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (4)

  • SKILL.md4.8 KB
  • resources/prompt-quality-checklist.md1.2 KB
  • resources/prompt.example.prompt.md1.4 KB
  • resources/prompt.template.prompt.md979 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Creating Copilot Prompt Files

Use this skill when a task deserves a reusable entrypoint instead of the user re-explaining the same workflow every time. It helps create prompt files that are specific, easy to invoke, and well-matched to the agent or workflow behind them.

When to Use

Use this skill when the user asks for things like:

  • "create a prompt file for this workflow"
  • "turn this repeated request into a .prompt.md"
  • "route this task to the right agent with guided input"
  • "fix a prompt that is too vague or too generic"
  • "add a reusable prompt example for the team"

Typical scenarios:

  • creating a focused slash-command entrypoint
  • standardizing a frequent analysis or generation workflow
  • capturing required inputs and outputs for a specialized task
  • improving prompt usability for a repository or public collection

Outcome Standard

A strong prompt contribution usually includes:

  • a single clear job
  • the right target agent and model when appropriate
  • explicit inputs, workflow steps, and output expectations
  • minimal overlap with agent identity or repository instructions
  • one install-ready prompt file plus reference material

Prompt Design Rules

  • Workflow starter, not persona - let the agent define behavior; let the prompt define the task.
  • One job per prompt - split prompts that try to launch multiple unrelated workflows.
  • Be explicit about inputs - state what the user or workspace must provide.
  • Define the finish line - describe the expected deliverable or completion state.
  • Stay reusable - avoid baking in one-off context that belongs in the user's actual message.

Workflow

Phase 0: Decide whether a prompt is the right primitive

Use a prompt when users need a reusable task starter. If the real need is a standing expert role, create an agent. If the real need is reusable procedural knowledge, create a skill. If the real need is always-on repository rules, create instructions.

Phase 1: Frame the prompt contract

Clarify or infer:

  • what task the prompt should trigger
  • which agent should receive the work
  • what input the user must provide
  • what output or artifact the prompt should produce

Phase 2: Draft the frontmatter

Choose the smallest useful set of fields:

  • name for a readable menu label when needed
  • agent to route the workflow intentionally
  • description to make the prompt discoverable
  • model when a model choice materially matters
  • argument-hint when the user needs help providing the right context
  • tools only when the prompt truly needs to override defaults

Phase 3: Write the prompt body

Use the supporting resources below while drafting:

  • ./resources/prompt.template.prompt.md
  • ./resources/prompt.example.prompt.md

A good prompt body should usually include:

  • a short goal statement
  • required or optional inputs
  • a numbered workflow
  • output expectations or completion criteria
  • constraints when the workflow should stay within tight bounds

Phase 4: Package the reference bundle

At minimum, provide:

  • the main .prompt.md file
  • one template or example for reuse
  • a short explanation of why the agent, model, and inputs were chosen

Phase 5: Validate before handoff

Check the result against ./resources/prompt-quality-checklist.md.

Pay special attention to:

  • whether the prompt tells the agent what to do without redefining who the agent is
  • whether the inputs are explicit enough to prevent weak output
  • whether the workflow is focused on one coherent outcome
  • whether the file is discoverable from the description and name

Common Failure Modes

  • writing a prompt that sounds like an agent manifesto
  • omitting the key inputs the workflow depends on
  • stacking multiple unrelated jobs into one prompt
  • overriding tools without a concrete need
  • producing a prompt that still requires the user to re-explain everything every time

Resource Map

  • ./resources/prompt.template.prompt.md - scaffold for a focused prompt file
  • ./resources/prompt.example.prompt.md - worked example of a reusable prompt
  • ./resources/prompt-quality-checklist.md - final review checklist before shipping

Definition of Done

A task using this skill is complete when:

  • the prompt starts one clear workflow
  • the chosen agent and inputs make sense for the outcome
  • the file is install-ready and internally consistent
  • supporting template or example material exists for reuse
  • the final prompt passes the quality checklist without obvious ambiguity

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Defines, computes, and interprets test and quality metrics: pass rate, flake rate, suite duration, defect escape rate, time to detect, and coverage with its caveats. Use when building a QA dashboard, reporting suite health to stakeholders, comparing releases over time, or when a coverage percentage or a bug count is being treated as a measure of quality.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Analyzes diffs, changed files, hotfixes, and release candidates to identify where regression risk spreads and what must be retested first. Use when scoping retest after a change, reviewing QA impact for a pull request, or building a minimal confidence suite for release validation.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Writes and reviews API automation tests with Playwright Test, covering setup/teardown, assertions, data management, and hybrid API+UI flows. Use when creating backend API tests, contract checks, data-driven API coverage, API+UI hybrid workflows, or reviewing existing Playwright API suites.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Measures the risk that code shipped without anyone understanding it: a teach-back attestation on high-risk changes, a risk band from changed-code complexity, diff size and whether a human explanation accompanied it, and optional AI-authorship provenance. Findings stay advisory by design. Use when an AI-assisted codebase grows faster than the team reads it, when reviews are rubber-stamped, when nobody can explain a module that ships weekly, or when leadership asks how much of the code the team can actually maintain.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Produces an evidence-backed go/no-go recommendation: exit criteria status, open-defect risk profile, coverage against risk, environment parity, rollback readiness, and the residual risk stated plainly. Use when preparing a release sign-off, when someone asks whether a build is ready to ship, or when a decision to release is being made on impressions rather than evidence.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

Records human verification - code review, exploratory sessions, UAT, accessibility passes, UX and observability reviews - as dated, attributed attestations in a register, so human-centric practices stay in the quality contract without pretending to be automated checks. Use when a strategy requires verification no tool can prove, when sign-off evidence is scattered across chats and tickets, when a gap matrix needs to distinguish "attested" from "passed", or when an audit asks who verified what and when.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers118Updated Aug 27, 2026

See all skills by jaktestowac

Report a problem with this skill