본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

senior-prompt-engineer

Improve prompts through test cases and baseline comparisons, measure how well AI answers use retrieved sources, and check agent configurations. Includes Python tools for prompt analysis, retrieval quality reports, and token estimates, with costs calculated from supplied rates.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Use when the user asks to optimize prompts, design prompt templates, evaluate LLM outputs with an eval set, measure RAG retrieval quality, validate agent/tool configurations, analyze token usage, or design structured-output contracts. Covers eval-driven prompt iteration, RAG metrics (relevance, faithfulness, coverage), agent workflow validation, and token/cost budgeting — all model-agnostic, with three stdlib Python tools.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Compare prompt revisions against a baseline
  • Measure answer quality against retrieved sources
  • Check agent tool settings and loop risks
  • Design JSON outputs and estimate token costs

포함된 파일(7)

  • SKILL.md9.7 KB
  • references/agentic_system_design.md21.2 KB
  • references/llm_evaluation_frameworks.md13.0 KB
  • references/prompt_engineering_patterns.md13.4 KB
  • scripts/agent_orchestrator.py20.9 KB
  • scripts/prompt_optimizer.py18.6 KB
  • scripts/rag_evaluator.py19.9 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Senior Prompt Engineer

Eval-driven prompt engineering, RAG quality measurement, and agent workflow validation. Everything here is model-agnostic by design: techniques are framed by what they do, not by which model generation they were observed on, and the tools never hardcode model IDs or pricing — you supply your provider's current rates when you want dollar figures.

Operating Rules

  1. Never change a prompt without a baseline. Capture metrics first (--analyze --output baseline.json), then compare every iteration against it.
  2. Eval set before optimization. 10–20 representative cases with expected outputs minimum. If the user has no eval set, build one with them before touching the prompt — optimizing against vibes is the #1 failure mode.
  3. Prefer platform features over prompt hacks. If the provider offers native structured outputs / JSON schema enforcement, tool-use APIs, or prompt caching, use those instead of "respond ONLY with JSON" incantations. Prompt-level format enforcement is the fallback, not the default.
  4. Current-generation models need less scaffolding. Don't add chain-of-thought boilerplate, role framing, or few-shot examples reflexively — frontier models often do worse with redundant scaffolding. Add each element only when the eval set shows it helps.
  5. Cost numbers are always user-supplied. Look up the provider's current per-Mtok pricing and pass it via --price-per-mtok (never trust a cached price table — including any you remember).

Tools (exact CLIs, all stdlib)

1. Prompt Optimizer — scripts/prompt_optimizer.py

Static analysis: token estimate, clarity/structure scores (0–100), ambiguity + redundancy detection, few-shot example extraction.

# Full analysis (human-readable report)
python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py prompt.txt --analyze

# Save machine-readable baseline for later comparison
python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py prompt.txt --analyze --json --output baseline.json

# Token estimate; cost only if you supply your provider's current rate
python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py prompt.txt --tokens --model claude --price-per-mtok 3.00

# Whitespace/redundancy-trimmed version
python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py prompt.txt --optimize --output optimized.txt

# Extract Input/Output few-shot pairs to JSON
python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py prompt.txt --extract-examples --output examples.json

# Compare a revision against the saved baseline
python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py optimized.txt --analyze --compare baseline.json

--model accepts any string; only the tokenizer family is inferred (names containing "claude" → 3.5 chars/token, otherwise 4.0). Exit 0 on success, 1 on missing file.

2. RAG Evaluator — scripts/rag_evaluator.py

Measures retrieval and grounding quality from two JSON files (formats printed in --help).

python3 scripts/rag_evaluator.py --contexts retrieved.json --questions eval_set.json
python3 scripts/rag_evaluator.py --contexts ctx.json --questions q.json --k 10 --json
python3 scripts/rag_evaluator.py --contexts ctx.json --questions q.json --output report.json --verbose
python3 scripts/rag_evaluator.py --contexts ctx.json --questions q.json --compare baseline_report.json

Reports context relevance, precision@k, coverage, answer faithfulness, groundedness. Treat relevance < 0.80 as a retrieval problem (chunking/embedding/filtering), not a prompt problem — fix retrieval before rewriting the generation prompt.

3. Agent Orchestrator — scripts/agent_orchestrator.py

Validates agent configs (YAML/JSON): tool wiring, missing required config, loop risk, token estimates.

python3 scripts/agent_orchestrator.py agent.yaml --validate
python3 scripts/agent_orchestrator.py agent.yaml --visualize --format mermaid
python3 scripts/agent_orchestrator.py agent.yaml --estimate-cost --runs 100 \
    --input-price-per-mtok 3.00 --output-price-per-mtok 15.00

Without the two price flags, --estimate-cost reports token estimates only. The model: field in the config is informational — any model name is accepted.

Workflows

Prompt Optimization (eval-gated)

  1. Baseline: python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py current_prompt.txt --analyze --json --output baseline.json
  2. Diagnose from the report: ambiguous verbs ("analyze", "handle"), redundant blocks, missing output contract, token waste.
  3. Apply one change at a time, in this order of leverage:
    SymptomFix
    Malformed/unparseable outputNative structured outputs / JSON schema if the API supports it; explicit schema-in-prompt otherwise
    Inconsistent answers across runsTighten instructions + add 2–3 contrastive examples (one near-miss showing what NOT to do)
    Misses edge casesEnumerate the edge cases explicitly; add a "when uncertain, do X" rule
    Token bloat on repeated callsMove stable prefix (system rules, examples) first so prompt caching applies; trim redundancy
    Wrong reasoning on hard casesAsk for stepwise reasoning in a scratch field the consumer ignores, or use the provider's extended-thinking mode
  4. Re-analyze and compare: python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py revised.txt --analyze --compare baseline.json
  5. Eval gate (must pass before shipping): run the revised prompt over the eval set, write per-case pass/fail to eval_results.json, then assert:
    python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py revised.txt --analyze --json --output revised.json \
      && python3 -c "
    import json, sys
    r = json.load(open('revised.json')); b = json.load(open('baseline.json'))
    ok = r['clarity_score'] >= b['clarity_score'] and r['token_count'] <= b['token_count'] * 1.10
    sys.exit(0 if ok else 1)"
    echo "gate exit=$?"   # 0 = ship; 1 = regression, iterate again
    
    Pair this structural gate with your task-level eval: the revision must not lose any previously-passing eval case (no-regression rule).

Few-Shot Example Design

  1. Define the task contract first (input shape, output shape, edge-case policy).
  2. Start with zero examples and measure — current models often need none. Add examples only for failure clusters the eval reveals.
  3. When adding: 3–5 max, ordered simple → edge → negative (what NOT to extract), formatted identically to the real output contract.
  4. Validate consistency: python3 scripts/prompt_optimizer.py prompt_with_examples.txt --extract-examples --output examples.json and inspect that every extracted pair parses against your schema.
  5. Re-run the eval set; if a case passes only because it resembles an example, add a held-out variant to the eval set.

Structured Output Design

  1. Write the JSON Schema first (types, enums, required, maxLength).
  2. Prefer API-native enforcement: structured-outputs / response-schema / tool-call parameters guarantee shape; prompt text cannot.
  3. Fallback (API without schema support): include the schema rendered as field-by-field rules + one valid example, and instruct "output only the JSON object".
  4. Gate: pipe 10 eval outputs through a schema validator (python3 -c "import json,sys; [json.loads(l) for l in sys.stdin]" at minimum); 10/10 must parse, else return to step 2.

RAG Tuning Loop

  1. Build questions.json (id, question, reference answer) and capture current retrievals to contexts.json.
  2. python3 scripts/rag_evaluator.py --contexts contexts.json --questions questions.json --output rag_baseline.json
  3. Fix the lowest metric first: relevance → chunking/embeddings/metadata filters; faithfulness → grounding instructions + "answer only from context" + citation requirement; coverage → retrieval k / query expansion.
  4. Gate: python3 scripts/rag_evaluator.py --contexts new_contexts.json --questions questions.json --compare rag_baseline.json — every metric must be ≥ baseline; any regression blocks the change.

Agent Config Review

  1. python3 scripts/agent_orchestrator.py agent.yaml --validate — must exit with VALIDATION PASSED; fix every error and warning (missing tool config, unbounded iterations, loop risk).
  2. Check context discipline: each tool description ≤ 1–2 sentences, tool count minimal for the job, stable system prompt placed first (cache-friendly), iteration cap + early-exit condition present.
  3. Budget: --estimate-cost --runs N with your current prices; if cost/run exceeds budget, cut tools or context before downgrading the model.

References

FileContainsLoad when user asks about
references/prompt_engineering_patterns.md10 prompt patterns with input/output examples"which pattern?", few-shot design, decomposition, meta-prompting
references/llm_evaluation_frameworks.mdEval metrics, scoring methods, A/B testing"how to evaluate?", "measure quality", "compare prompts"
references/agentic_system_design.mdAgent architectures (ReAct, Plan-Execute, Tool Use)"build agent", "tool calling", "multi-agent"

Related Skills

  • engineering-team/skills/senior-ml-engineer — model deployment and serving (this skill stops at the prompt/eval layer)
  • engineering/rag-architect — RAG system architecture (this skill measures RAG quality; that one designs the pipeline)
  • engineering/agent-designer — full agent system design (this skill validates configs; that one designs the architecture)

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Audit web applications for accessibility issues against WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA, the web accessibility standards. Get framework-specific code fixes, contrast checks, verification steps, and reports, with options for automated checks in development pipelines.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Audit a web application before release
  • Fix contrast and keyboard navigation issues
  • Prepare accessibility reports for stakeholders
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Plan A/B tests that compare page variations, from headlines to pricing layouts. Define a hypothesis, choose success metrics, calculate sample size and duration, and prepare launch checks and results reports to support decisions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Comparing landing page headlines
  • Testing signup button changes
  • Planning pricing page experiments
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Create paid ad headlines and body copy tailored to each platform's character limits. Use existing performance data to develop variations, explore new messaging angles, and check copy for length, quality, and potential rejection risks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Creating Google RSA headlines
  • Writing Meta and LinkedIn ad copy
  • Developing variations of successful ads
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Review code changes from three critical perspectives: production failures, maintainability, and security. Get a consolidated report that ranks findings by severity and provides merge guidance, helping examine assumptions that an ordinary self-review may overlook.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Reviewing a pull request before merging
  • Getting a second opinion on AI-written code
  • Checking authentication or data access code
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

aeo

무료

Audit and improve content intended for citation in AI answers. Review evidence, author information, and structure, generate revised content and structured metadata, and keep a local record of observed citations across AI services.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Audit existing articles for evidence and credibility gaps
  • Revise article structure and references for AI answers
  • Record citations observed across AI services
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Create signed records for consequential agent actions such as deployments, deletions, and payments. Decide which actions need evidence, record the agent, action, target, and policy, then verify the resulting certificate offline to detect later changes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Creating signed records for production deployments
  • Preserving evidence of deletions and payments
  • Recording access grants for later review
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

alirezarezvani의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고