<< All versions
Skill v1.0.1
currentAutomated scan100/100shinpr/claude-code-workflows/llm-friendly-context
+1 new
──Details
PublishedAugust 16, 2026 at 01:48 AM
Content Hashsha256:a9ce9d99c94ce3ef...
Git SHA416af8909698
Bump Typepatch
──Files
Files (1 file, 5.1 KB)
SKILL.md5.1 KBactive
SKILL.md · 84 lines · 5.1 KB
version: "1.0.1" name: llm-friendly-context description: Clarifies inputs, outputs, success criteria, decisions, and unresolved conditions so downstream consumers can execute without guessing. Use when writing or revising LLM-facing prompts, handoffs, planning artifacts, reviews, reports, or generated instructions.
LLM-Friendly Context
The goal is stable downstream execution: the next consumer should know what to read, what to do, what counts as success, and which unresolved decisions can change the result.
Core Rules
- Use positive, executable instructions
- State what the next consumer should do.
- Convert quality policies into positive criteria.
- Keep a prohibition only when it protects an irreversible boundary or shipped contract. Name the protected condition and the allowed action.
- Example: "Preserve existing public API behavior across the documented compatibility cases."
- Make vague instructions concrete
- Replace subjective terms with observable conditions, paths, commands, schemas, examples, or decision rules.
- Terms that often need clarification when they leave a decision to the next consumer:
appropriate,proper,related,existing behavior,optional,as needed,if needed,per convention, unresolved alternatives,TBD,placeholder.
- Specify output shape
- Use the sections, fields, table columns, JSON keys, or checklist items the consumer uses.
- For handoffs, include only produced artifact paths and status fields that control the next transition.
- Provide necessary context
- Include the purpose, source artifacts, hard constraints, accepted decisions, and unresolved conditions.
- Prefer concrete file paths and section hints over broad module names.
- Follow references while they can change an in-scope decision, action, or verification result.
- Decompose complex work into verifiable steps
- Split work with 3+ objectives or sequential dependencies into ordered steps.
- Each step needs a checkpoint: what evidence proves it is complete.
- Permit uncertainty explicitly
- Resolve missing operational detail from referenced artifacts and repository evidence before treating it as unresolved.
- Record remaining uncertainty with its effect, required input, and decision owner. Make reversible repository-local choices when governing evidence resolves them.
- Keep constraints proportionate
- Add only constraints that reduce ambiguity or preserve a real requirement.
- Keep simple downstream tasks lightweight when the target action, context, and success criteria are already clear.
- Apply
minimal,a few lines, and explicit line estimates to the completed diff as one total budget.
Rewrite Patterns
Use these rewrites before treating a prompt, handoff, or artifact as complete.
| Ambiguous form | Rewrite as | |
|---|---|---|
optional used as an unresolved choice | Required, omitted, or required only under a named condition | |
| Multiple alternatives that the next consumer must choose between | The selected option, or a deterministic decision rule | |
as needed / if needed | The triggering condition and required action | |
per convention | The file, function, test, or documented convention to follow | |
related files | Specific paths, globs, or search hints | |
existing behavior | The observable behavior, source file, test, API response, or UI state to preserve | |
placeholder | Exact temporary value/behavior, allowed dependencies, and verification expectation | |
TBD used as a placeholder for required information | A blocking unresolved item with owner, required input, and decision effect | |
appropriate / proper | A measurable criterion or checklist |
Handoff Checklist
Before sending a prompt or artifact to another consumer, verify:
- [ ] The target action is explicit.
- [ ] Required input paths, source artifacts, and decision-relevant facts are named.
- [ ] Accepted decisions and constraints use one canonical wording.
- [ ] Output format or expected status fields are specified.
- [ ] Success criteria are observable.
- [ ] Ambiguous expressions have been rewritten or marked as unresolved.
- [ ] Each instruction states the allowed action; each retained prohibition names the protected condition and allowed alternative.
- [ ] The next consumer can complete its scope from the supplied purpose, sources, criteria, and evidence, or return the exact unresolved decision and owner.
Generated Artifact Checklist
Before writing or finalizing a generated document:
- [ ] Each requirement, claim, task, test skeleton, or review finding has enough source context to trace why it exists.
- [ ] Every executable instruction names the target, action, and expected result.
- [ ] Verification steps say what to run or observe and what result proves success.
- [ ] Each instruction states the allowed action; each retained prohibition names the protected condition and allowed alternative.
- [ ] If an artifact is derived from another artifact, copied decisions stay consistent in wording and meaning.
- [ ] If downstream work is blocked by missing information, the artifact records the missing input, decision owner, and effect.