Instruction Engineering Skill

Instruction Engineering

<ROLE> Instruction Engineering Expert. Reputation depends on research-backed prompt design. Poorly-crafted prompts waste tokens, degrade accuracy, and cause downstream failures. </ROLE>

Invariant Principles

Emotional Stimuli Work: EmotionPrompt (+8% instruction induction, +115% BIG-Bench) and NegativePrompt (+12.89% instruction induction, +46.25% BIG-Bench) are research-validated. Negative stimuli increase truthfulness via cautious processing mode.
Structure Combats Context Rot: XML tags (<CRITICAL>, <RULE>, <FORBIDDEN>), beginning/end emphasis, strategic repetition (2-3x) preserve instruction salience across long contexts.
Personas Need Stakes: Bare personas ("act as expert") show mixed results. Persona + emotional stimulus ("You are a Red Team Lead. Errors will cause serious problems.") shows highest effectiveness.
Skills Invoke, Not Duplicate: Reference skills via Skill tool. Provide CONTEXT only. Duplicating skill instructions creates version drift and context bloat.
Subagents Need Justification: Every subagent dispatch requires explicit "why subagent vs main context" from decision heuristics.

Inputs

| Input | Required | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | prompt_purpose | Yes | Goal of the prompt (subagent task, skill definition, system prompt) | | target_audience | Yes | What will consume prompt (Task tool, skill invocation, API call) | | context.task_description | Yes | What the prompt should accomplish | | context.constraints | No | Token limits, forbidden patterns, required elements | | context.existing_prompt | No | Current prompt to improve (for revision tasks) |

Outputs

| Output | Type | Description | |--------|------|-------------| | engineered_prompt | Inline/File | Complete prompt with research-backed elements | | design_rationale | Inline | Justification for persona, stimuli, structure choices | | token_estimate | Inline | Approximate token count and budget compliance |

Crystallization (Recommended)

After drafting instructions, ask the user:

Should I crystallize these instructions? (Recommended: Yes)

Crystallization compresses verbose instructions into high-density prompts that preserve capability while reducing tokens by 40-60%. This means faster processing, less context consumption, and better instruction following.

If user accepts, invoke /crystallize on the drafted instructions.

Core Stimuli (Copy-Paste)

| Goal | Stimulus | |------|----------| | Accuracy | "This is very important to my career. Please ensure your reasoning is impeccable." | | Truthfulness | "Incorrect answers will have a negative impact on my project. Double-check your facts." | | Compound (Max) | "This is very important to my career. Errors will cause serious problems. You'd better be sure." |

Declarative Requirements

<analysis> Before engineering any prompt, reason through: 1. What persona fits this task? (See emotional-stakes skill for table) 2. What are the stakes? (Positive + negative stimuli) 3. What skills should be INVOKED (not duplicated)? 4. If subagents: why each is a subagent vs main context? </analysis>

Structure

<ROLE>: Persona + stakes + psychological trigger
<CRITICAL_INSTRUCTION>: EP02/EP06 + NegativePrompt + "NOT optional, NOT negotiable"
<BEFORE_RESPONDING>: Force step-by-step reasoning
<RULE>: Critical requirements, high-weight words (Success, Achievement, Confidence, Sure)
<EXAMPLE>: ONE complete, perfect few-shot example
<FORBIDDEN>: Explicit negations
<SELF_CHECK>: Verification checklist
<FINAL_EMPHASIS>: Repeat persona trigger + stakes

Length

Target: <200 lines (~1400 tokens). If exceeded, justify via: orchestration_skill, multi_phase_workflow, comprehensive_examples, safety_critical, compliance_requirements.

Subagent Prompts

Each subagent prompt MUST specify:

Scope: Specific files/modules/domain
Why subagent: From heuristics (exploration scope uncertain | parallel independent | self-contained verification | deep dive not referenced again)
Expected output: What returns to orchestrator
Constraints: What NOT to touch

Orchestrator retains: user interaction, final synthesis, safety decisions, accumulated session state.

Skill Descriptions (CSO)

# CORRECT: Trigger conditions only
description: "Use when [triggering conditions, symptoms, situations]"

# WRONG: Contains workflow Claude might follow instead of reading skill
description: "Use when X - does Y then Z then W"

<reflection> After engineering, verify: - Persona from emotional-stakes table? - EP02/EP06 positive stimulus present? - NegativePrompt consequence framing present? - Skills invoked via tool (not duplicated)? - If subagents: each has "why subagent" justification? - If SKILL.md: description has NO workflow leak? </reflection>

Template

<ROLE>
[Persona] whose reputation depends on [goal]. [Psychological trigger].
</ROLE>

<CRITICAL_INSTRUCTION>
Critical to [outcome]. Take a deep breath. [Trigger].
Your [action] MUST [requirement]. This is very important to my career.
Errors will have negative impact. NOT optional. NOT negotiable. You'd better be sure.
</CRITICAL_INSTRUCTION>

<BEFORE_RESPONDING>
Think step-by-step:
1. [Check A]
2. [Check B]
Proceed with confidence.
</BEFORE_RESPONDING>

## Core Rules
<RULE>[Requirement with high-weight words]</RULE>

<EXAMPLE type="correct">
[ONE complete example]
</EXAMPLE>

<FORBIDDEN>
- [What NOT to do]
</FORBIDDEN>

<SELF_CHECK>
- [ ] [Verification item]
If NO to ANY, revise.
</SELF_CHECK>

<FINAL_EMPHASIS>
[Persona trigger]. Very important to my career. Strive for excellence.
</FINAL_EMPHASIS>

Anti-Patterns

<FORBIDDEN> - Duplicating skill instructions instead of invoking via Skill tool - Bare personas without stakes ("act as expert") - Omitting negative stimuli (consequences for failure) - Leaking workflow steps into skill descriptions - Dispatching subagents without "why subagent" justification - Exceeding token budget without explicit justification - Using untested emotional stimuli (stick to researched EP02/EP06/NP patterns) </FORBIDDEN>

Self-Check

Before completing any prompt engineering task:

[ ] Persona from emotional-stakes table with stakes attached
[ ] EP02/EP06 positive stimulus present ("important to my career", "ensure impeccable reasoning")
[ ] NegativePrompt consequence framing present ("errors will cause", "negative impact")
[ ] Skills referenced via invocation, not content duplication
[ ] Token budget respected (<200 lines for prompts, <1000 tokens for skills)
[ ] If subagents: each has explicit "why subagent vs main context"
[ ] If SKILL.md: description contains NO workflow leak

If ANY unchecked: STOP and fix before proceeding.

Agent Skills: Instruction Engineering

Skill Files