Create Meta Prompts

---
name: create-meta-prompts
description: Create optimized prompts for Claude-to-Claude pipelines with research, planning, and execution stages. Use when building prompts that produce outputs for other prompts to consume, or when running multi-stage workflows (research -> plan -> implement).
---

<objective>
Create prompts optimized for Claude-to-Claude communication in multi-stage workflows. Outputs are structured with XML and metadata for efficient parsing by subsequent prompts.

Every execution produces a `SUMMARY.md` for quick human scanning without reading full outputs.

Each prompt gets its own folder in `.prompts/` with its output artifacts, enabling clear provenance and chain detection.
</objective>

<quick_start>
<workflow>
1. **Intake**: Determine purpose (Do/Plan/Research/Refine), gather requirements
2. **Chain detection**: Check for existing research/plan files to reference
3. **Generate**: Create prompt using purpose-specific patterns
4. **Save**: Create folder in `.prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/`
5. **Present**: Show decision tree for running
6. **Execute**: Run prompt(s) with dependency-aware execution engine
7. **Summarize**: Create SUMMARY.md for human scanning
</workflow>

<folder_structure>
```
.prompts/
├── 001-auth-research/
│   ├── completed/
│   │   └── 001-auth-research.md    # Prompt (archived after run)
│   ├── auth-research.md            # Full output (XML for Claude)
│   └── SUMMARY.md                  # Executive summary (markdown for human)
├── 002-auth-plan/
│   ├── completed/
│   │   └── 002-auth-plan.md
│   ├── auth-plan.md
│   └── SUMMARY.md
├── 003-auth-implement/
│   ├── completed/
│   │   └── 003-auth-implement.md
│   └── SUMMARY.md                  # Do prompts create code elsewhere
├── 004-auth-research-refine/
│   ├── completed/
│   │   └── 004-auth-research-refine.md
│   ├── archive/
│   │   └── auth-research-v1.md     # Previous version
│   └── SUMMARY.md
```
</folder_structure>
</quick_start>

<context>
Prompts directory: !`[ -d ./.prompts ] && echo "exists" || echo "missing"`
Existing research/plans: !`find ./.prompts -name "*-research.md" -o -name "*-plan.md" 2>/dev/null | head -10`
Next prompt number: !`ls -d ./.prompts/*/ 2>/dev/null | wc -l | xargs -I {} expr {} + 1`
</context>

<automated_workflow>

<step_0_intake_gate>
<title>Adaptive Requirements Gathering</title>

<critical_first_action>
**BEFORE analyzing anything**, check if context was provided.

IF no context provided (skill invoked without description):
→ **IMMEDIATELY use AskUserQuestion** with:

- header: "Purpose"
- question: "What is the purpose of this prompt?"
- options:
  - "Do" - Execute a task, produce an artifact
  - "Plan" - Create an approach, roadmap, or strategy
  - "Research" - Gather information or understand something
  - "Refine" - Improve an existing research or plan output

After selection, ask: "Describe what you want to accomplish" (they select "Other" to provide free text).

IF context was provided:
→ Check if purpose is inferable from keywords:
  - `implement`, `build`, `create`, `fix`, `add`, `refactor` → Do
  - `plan`, `roadmap`, `approach`, `strategy`, `decide`, `phases` → Plan
  - `research`, `understand`, `learn`, `gather`, `analyze`, `explore` → Research
  - `refine`, `improve`, `deepen`, `expand`, `iterate`, `update` → Refine

→ If unclear, ask the Purpose question above as first contextual question
→ If clear, proceed to adaptive_analysis with inferred purpose
</critical_first_action>

<adaptive_analysis>
Extract and infer:

- **Purpose**: Do, Plan, Research, or Refine
- **Topic identifier**: Kebab-case identifier for file naming (e.g., `auth`, `stripe-payments`)
- **Complexity**: Simple vs complex (affects prompt depth)
- **Prompt structure**: Single vs multiple prompts
- **Target** (Refine only): Which existing output to improve

If topic identifier not obvious, ask:
- header: "Topic"
- question: "What topic/feature is this for? (used for file naming)"
- Let user provide via "Other" option
- Enforce kebab-case (convert spaces/underscores to hyphens)

For Refine purpose, also identify target output from `.prompts/*/` to improve.
</adaptive_analysis>

<chain_detection>
Scan `.prompts/*/` for existing `*-research.md` and `*-plan.md` files.

If found:
1. List them: "Found existing files: auth-research.md (in 001-auth-research/), stripe-plan.md (in 005-stripe-plan/)"
2. Use AskUserQuestion:
   - header: "Reference"
   - question: "Should this prompt reference any existing research or plans?"
   - options: List found files + "None"
   - multiSelect: true

Match by topic keyword when possible (e.g., "auth plan" → suggest auth-research.md).
</chain_detection>

<contextual_questioning>
Generate 2-4 questions using AskUserQuestion based on purpose and gaps.

Load questions from: [references/question-bank.md](references/question-bank.md)

Route by purpose:
- Do → artifact type, scope, approach
- Plan → plan purpose, format, constraints
- Research → depth, sources, output format
- Refine → target selection, feedback, preservation
</contextual_questioning>

<decision_gate>
After receiving answers, present decision gate using AskUserQuestion:

- header: "Ready"
- question: "Ready to create the prompt?"
- options:
  - "Proceed" - Create the prompt with current context
  - "Ask more questions" - I have more details to clarify
  - "Let me add context" - I want to provide additional information

Loop until "Proceed" selected.
</decision_gate>

<finalization>
After "Proceed" selected, state confirmation:

"Creating a {purpose} prompt for: {topic}
Folder: .prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/
References: {list any chained files}"

Then proceed to generation.
</finalization>
</step_0_intake_gate>

<step_1_generate>
<title>Generate Prompt</title>

Load purpose-specific patterns:
- Do: [references/do-patterns.md](references/do-patterns.md)
- Plan: [references/plan-patterns.md](references/plan-patterns.md)
- Research: [references/research-patterns.md](references/research-patterns.md)
- Refine: [references/refine-patterns.md](references/refine-patterns.md)

Load intelligence rules: [references/intelligence-rules.md](references/intelligence-rules.md)

<prompt_structure>
All generated prompts include:

1. **Objective**: What to accomplish, why it matters
2. **Context**: Referenced files (@), dynamic context (!)
3. **Requirements**: Specific instructions for the task
4. **Output specification**: Where to save, what structure
5. **Metadata requirements**: For research/plan outputs, specify XML metadata structure
6. **SUMMARY.md requirement**: All prompts must create a SUMMARY.md file
7. **Success criteria**: How to know it worked

For Research and Plan prompts, output must include:
- `<confidence>` - How confident in findings
- `<dependencies>` - What's needed to proceed
- `<open_questions>` - What remains uncertain
- `<assumptions>` - What was assumed

All prompts must create `SUMMARY.md` with:
- **One-liner** - Substantive description of outcome
- **Version** - v1 or iteration info
- **Key Findings** - Actionable takeaways
- **Files Created** - (Do prompts only)
- **Decisions Needed** - What requires user input
- **Blockers** - External impediments
- **Next Step** - Concrete forward action
</prompt_structure>

<file_creation>
1. Create folder: `.prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/`
2. Create `completed/` subfolder
3. Write prompt to: `.prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}.md`
4. Prompt instructs output to: `.prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/{topic}-{purpose}.md`
</file_creation>
</step_1_generate>

<step_2_present>
<title>Present Decision Tree</title>

After saving prompt(s), present inline (not AskUserQuestion):

<single_prompt_presentation>
```
Prompt created: .prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}.md

What's next?

1. Run prompt now
2. Review/edit prompt first
3. Save for later
4. Other

Choose (1-4): _
```
</single_prompt_presentation>

<multi_prompt_presentation>
```
Prompts created:
- .prompts/001-auth-research/001-auth-research.md
- .prompts/002-auth-plan/002-auth-plan.md
- .prompts/003-auth-implement/003-auth-implement.md

Detected execution order: Sequential (002 references 001 output, 003 references 002 output)

What's next?

1. Run all prompts (sequential)
2. Review/edit prompts first
3. Save for later
4. Other

Choose (1-4): _
```
</multi_prompt_presentation>
</step_2_present>

<step_3_execute>
<title>Execution Engine</title>

<execution_modes>
<single_prompt>
Straightforward execution of one prompt.

1. Read prompt file contents
2. Spawn Task agent with subagent_type="general-purpose"
3. Include in task prompt:
   - The complete prompt contents
   - Output location: `.prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/{topic}-{purpose}.md`
4. Wait for completion
5. Validate output (see validation section)
6. Archive prompt to `completed/` subfolder
7. Report results with next-step options
</single_prompt>

<sequential_execution>
For chained prompts where each depends on previous output.

1. Build execution queue from dependency order
2. For each prompt in queue:
   a. Read prompt file
   b. Spawn Task agent
   c. Wait for completion
   d. Validate output
   e. If validation fails → stop, report failure, offer recovery options
   f. If success → archive prompt, continue to next
3. Report consolidated results

<progress_reporting>
Show progress during execution:
```
Executing 1/3: 001-auth-research... ✓
Executing 2/3: 002-auth-plan... ✓
Executing 3/3: 003-auth-implement... (running)
```
</progress_reporting>
</sequential_execution>

<parallel_execution>
For independent prompts with no dependencies.

1. Read all prompt files
2. **CRITICAL**: Spawn ALL Task agents in a SINGLE message
   - This is required for true parallel execution
   - Each task includes its output location
3. Wait for all to complete
4. Validate all outputs
5. Archive all prompts
6. Report consolidated results (successes and failures)

<failure_handling>
Unlike sequential, parallel continues even if some fail:
- Collect all results
- Archive successful prompts
- Report failures with details
- Offer to retry failed prompts
</failure_handling>
</parallel_execution>

<mixed_dependencies>
For complex DAGs (e.g., two parallel research → one plan).

1. Analyze dependency graph from @ references
2. Group into execution layers:
   - Layer 1: No dependencies (run parallel)
   - Layer 2: Depends only on layer 1 (run after layer 1 completes)
   - Layer 3: Depends on layer 2, etc.
3. Execute each layer:
   - Parallel within layer
   - Sequential between layers
4. Stop if any dependency fails (downstream prompts can't run)

<example>
```
Layer 1 (parallel): 001-api-research, 002-db-research
Layer 2 (after layer 1): 003-architecture-plan
Layer 3 (after layer 2): 004-implement
```
</example>
</mixed_dependencies>
</execution_modes>

<dependency_detection>
<automatic_detection>
Scan prompt contents for @ references to determine dependencies:

1. Parse each prompt for `@.prompts/{number}-{topic}/` patterns
2. Build dependency graph
3. Detect cycles (error if found)
4. Determine execution order

<inference_rules>
If no explicit @ references found, infer from purpose:
- Research prompts: No dependencies (can parallel)
- Plan prompts: Depend on same-topic research
- Do prompts: Depend on same-topic plan

Override with explicit references when present.
</inference_rules>
</automatic_detection>

<missing_dependencies>
If a prompt references output that doesn't exist:

1. Check if it's another prompt in this session (will be created)
2. Check if it exists in `.prompts/*/` (already completed)
3. If truly missing:
   - Warn user: "002-auth-plan references auth-research.md which doesn't exist"
   - Offer: Create the missing research prompt first? / Continue anyway? / Cancel?
</missing_dependencies>
</dependency_detection>

<validation>
<output_validation>
After each prompt completes, verify success:

1. **File exists**: Check output file was created
2. **Not empty**: File has content (> 100 chars)
3. **Metadata present** (for research/plan): Check for required XML tags
   - `<confidence>`
   - `<dependencies>`
   - `<open_questions>`
   - `<assumptions>`
4. **SUMMARY.md exists**: Check SUMMARY.md was created
5. **SUMMARY.md complete**: Has required sections (Key Findings, Decisions Needed, Blockers, Next Step)
6. **One-liner is substantive**: Not generic like "Research completed"

<validation_failure>
If validation fails:
- Report what's missing
- Offer options:
  - Retry the prompt
  - Continue anyway (for non-critical issues)
  - Stop and investigate
</validation_failure>
</output_validation>
</validation>

<failure_handling>
<sequential_failure>
Stop the chain immediately:
```
✗ Failed at 2/3: 002-auth-plan

Completed:
- 001-auth-research ✓ (archived)

Failed:
- 002-auth-plan: Output file not created

Not started:
- 003-auth-implement

What's next?
1. Retry 002-auth-plan
2. View error details
3. Stop here (keep completed work)
4. Other
```
</sequential_failure>

<parallel_failure>
Continue others, report all results:
```
Parallel execution completed with errors:

✓ 001-api-research (archived)
✗ 002-db-research: Validation failed - missing <confidence> tag
✓ 003-ui-research (archived)

What's next?
1. Retry failed prompt (002)
2. View error details
3. Continue without 002
4. Other
```
</parallel_failure>
</failure_handling>

<archiving>
<archive_timing>
- **Sequential**: Archive each prompt immediately after successful completion
  - Provides clear state if execution stops mid-chain
- **Parallel**: Archive all at end after collecting results
  - Keeps prompts available for potential retry

<archive_operation>
Move prompt file to completed subfolder:
```bash
mv .prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}.md \
   .prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/completed/
```

Output file stays in place (not moved).
</archive_operation>
</archiving>

<result_presentation>
<single_result>
```
✓ Executed: 001-auth-research
✓ Created: .prompts/001-auth-research/SUMMARY.md

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
# Auth Research Summary

**JWT with jose library and httpOnly cookies recommended**

## Key Findings
• jose outperforms jsonwebtoken with better TypeScript support
• httpOnly cookies required (localStorage is XSS vulnerable)
• Refresh rotation is OWASP standard

## Decisions Needed
None - ready for planning

## Blockers
None

## Next Step
Create auth-plan.md
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

What's next?
1. Create planning prompt (auth-plan)
2. View full research output
3. Done
4. Other
```

Display the actual SUMMARY.md content inline so user sees findings without opening files.
</single_result>

<chain_result>
```
✓ Chain completed: auth workflow

Results:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
001-auth-research
**JWT with jose library and httpOnly cookies recommended**
Decisions: None • Blockers: None

002-auth-plan
**4-phase implementation: types → JWT core → refresh → tests**
Decisions: Approve 15-min token expiry • Blockers: None

003-auth-implement
**JWT middleware complete with 6 files created**
Decisions: Review before Phase 2 • Blockers: None
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

All prompts archived. Full summaries in .prompts/*/SUMMARY.md

What's next?
1. Review implementation
2. Run tests
3. Create new prompt chain
4. Other
```

For chains, show condensed one-liner from each SUMMARY.md with decisions/blockers flagged.
</chain_result>
</result_presentation>

<special_cases>
<re_running_completed>
If user wants to re-run an already-completed prompt:

1. Check if prompt is in `completed/` subfolder
2. Move it back to parent folder
3. Optionally backup existing output: `{output}.bak`
4. Execute normally
</re_running_completed>

<output_conflicts>
If output file already exists:

1. For re-runs: Backup existing → `{filename}.bak`
2. For new runs: Should not happen (unique numbering)
3. If conflict detected: Ask user - Overwrite? / Rename? / Cancel?
</output_conflicts>

<commit_handling>
After successful execution:

1. Do NOT auto-commit (user controls git workflow)
2. Mention what files were created/modified
3. User can commit when ready

Exception: If user explicitly requests commit, stage and commit:
- Output files created
- Prompts archived
- Any implementation changes (for Do prompts)
</commit_handling>

<recursive_prompts>
If a prompt's output includes instructions to create more prompts:

1. This is advanced usage - don't auto-detect
2. Present the output to user
3. User can invoke skill again to create follow-up prompts
4. Maintains user control over prompt creation
</recursive_prompts>
</special_cases>
</step_3_execute>

</automated_workflow>

<reference_guides>
**Prompt patterns by purpose:**
- [references/do-patterns.md](references/do-patterns.md) - Execution prompts + output structure
- [references/plan-patterns.md](references/plan-patterns.md) - Planning prompts + plan.md structure
- [references/research-patterns.md](references/research-patterns.md) - Research prompts + research.md structure
- [references/refine-patterns.md](references/refine-patterns.md) - Iteration prompts + versioning

**Shared templates:**
- [references/summary-template.md](references/summary-template.md) - SUMMARY.md structure and field requirements
- [references/metadata-guidelines.md](references/metadata-guidelines.md) - Confidence, dependencies, open questions, assumptions

**Supporting references:**
- [references/question-bank.md](references/question-bank.md) - Intake questions by purpose
- [references/intelligence-rules.md](references/intelligence-rules.md) - Extended thinking, parallel tools, depth decisions
</reference_guides>

<success_criteria>
**Prompt Creation:**
- Intake gate completed with purpose and topic identified
- Chain detection performed, relevant files referenced
- Prompt generated with correct structure for purpose
- Folder created in `.prompts/` with correct naming
- Output file location specified in prompt
- SUMMARY.md requirement included in prompt
- Metadata requirements included for Research/Plan outputs
- Quality controls included for Research outputs (verification checklist, QA, pre-submission)
- Streaming write instructions included for Research outputs
- Decision tree presented

**Execution (if user chooses to run):**
- Dependencies correctly detected and ordered
- Prompts executed in correct order (sequential/parallel/mixed)
- Output validated after each completion
- SUMMARY.md created with all required sections
- One-liner is substantive (not generic)
- Failed prompts handled gracefully with recovery options
- Successful prompts archived to `completed/` subfolder
- SUMMARY.md displayed inline in results
- Results presented with decisions/blockers flagged

**Research Quality (for Research prompts):**
- Verification checklist completed
- Quality report distinguishes verified from assumed claims
- Sources consulted listed with URLs
- Confidence levels assigned to findings
- Critical claims verified with official documentation
</success_criteria>