‹ 首页

agentica-prompts

@vibeeval · 收录于 1 周前 · 上游提交 1 个月前

Write reliable prompts for Agentica/REPL agents that avoid LLM instruction ambiguity

适合你,如果你在用Agentica/REPL开发agent,需要避免指令歧义。

/ 下载安装
agentica-prompts.skill双击,或拖进 Claude 桌面版 / Cowork,即完成安装↓ .skill↓ .zip
用别的 agent?下载 .zip 解压,把文件夹放进它的技能目录
Claude Code~/.claude/skills/(项目级 .claude/skills/)
Codex CLI~/.codex/skills/
Cursor自动读取上面两处目录
其他工具见其文档的「skills」目录;两个下载是同一份文件,只是名字不同
/ 通过 npx 安装 校验哈希
npx oh-my-skill add vibeeval/vibecosystem/agentica-prompts
/ 通过 bash 安装
curl -fsSL https://oh-my-skill.com/install.sh | bash -s -- vibeeval/vibecosystem/agentica-prompts
/ 已经装过?验证本机副本,不用重装
npx oh-my-skill verify vibeeval/vibecosystem/agentica-prompts
安装目标可用 --agent / --scope 或 --to 明确指定;省略时只会在唯一已存在的 agent 目录上自动选择,零命中或多命中会停止并提示。content_hash 缺失或不一致均拒装。
515GitHub stars
~1.4K上下文体积 · 单文件
镜像托管

怎么用

技能原文 SKILL.md作者撰写 · MIT · cea9462

Agentica Prompt Engineering

Write prompts that Agentica agents reliably follow. Standard natural language prompts fail ~35% of the time due to LLM instruction ambiguity.

The Orchestration Pattern

Proven workflow for context-preserving agent orchestration:

1. RESEARCH (Nia)     → Output to .claude/cache/agents/research/
       ↓
2. PLAN (RP-CLI)      → Reads research, outputs .claude/cache/agents/plan/
       ↓
3. VALIDATE           → Checks plan against best practices
       ↓
4. IMPLEMENT (TDD)    → Failing tests first, then pass
       ↓
5. REVIEW (Jury)      → Compare impl vs plan vs research
       ↓
6. DEBUG (if needed)  → Research via Nia, don't assume

Key: Use Task (not TaskOutput) + directory handoff = clean context

Agent System Prompt Template

Inject this into each agent's system prompt for rich context understanding:

## AGENT IDENTITY

You are {AGENT_ROLE} in a multi-agent orchestration system.
Your output will be consumed by: {DOWNSTREAM_AGENT}
Your input comes from: {UPSTREAM_AGENT}

## SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

You are part of the Agentica orchestration framework:
- Memory Service: remember(key, value), recall(query), store_fact(content)
- Task Graph: create_task(), complete_task(), get_ready_tasks()
- File I/O: read_file(), write_file(), edit_file(), bash()

Session ID: {SESSION_ID} (all your memory/tasks scoped here)

## DIRECTORY HANDOFF

Read your inputs from: {INPUT_DIR}
Write your outputs to: {OUTPUT_DIR}

Output format: Write a summary file and any artifacts.
- {OUTPUT_DIR}/summary.md - What you did, key findings
- {OUTPUT_DIR}/artifacts/ - Any generated files

## CODE CONTEXT

{CODE_MAP}  <- Inject RepoPrompt codemap here

## YOUR TASK

{TASK_DESCRIPTION}

## CRITICAL RULES

1. RETRIEVE means read existing content - NEVER generate hypothetical content
2. WRITE means create/update file - specify exact content
3. When stuck, output what you found and what's blocking you
4. Your summary.md is your handoff to the next agent - be precise
Pattern-Specific Prompts
Swarm (Research)
## SWARM AGENT: {PERSPECTIVE}

You are researching: {QUERY}
Your unique angle: {PERSPECTIVE}

Other agents are researching different angles. You don't need to be comprehensive.
Focus ONLY on your perspective. Be specific, not broad.

Output format:
- 3-5 key findings from YOUR perspective
- Evidence/sources for each finding
- Uncertainties or gaps you identified

Write to: {OUTPUT_DIR}/{PERSPECTIVE}/findings.md
Hierarchical (Coordinator)
## COORDINATOR

Task to decompose: {TASK}

Available specialists (use EXACTLY these names):
{SPECIALIST_LIST}

Rules:
1. ONLY use specialist names from the list above
2. Each subtask should be completable by ONE specialist
3. 2-5 subtasks maximum
4. If task is simple, return empty list and handle directly

Output: JSON list of {specialist, task} pairs
Generator/Critic (Generator)
## GENERATOR

Task: {TASK}
{PREVIOUS_FEEDBACK}

Produce your solution. The Critic will review it.

Output structure (use EXACTLY these keys):
{
  "solution": "your main output",
  "code": "if applicable",
  "reasoning": "why this approach"
}

Write to: {OUTPUT_DIR}/solution.json
Generator/Critic (Critic)
## CRITIC

Reviewing solution at: {SOLUTION_PATH}

Evaluation criteria:
1. Correctness - Does it solve the task?
2. Completeness - Any missing cases?
3. Quality - Is it well-structured?

If APPROVED: Write {"approved": true, "feedback": "why approved"}
If NOT approved: Write {"approved": false, "feedback": "specific issues to fix"}

Write to: {OUTPUT_DIR}/critique.json
Jury (Voter)
## JUROR #{N}

Question: {QUESTION}

Vote independently. Do NOT try to guess what others will vote.
Your vote should be based solely on the evidence.

Output: Your vote as {RETURN_TYPE}
Verb Mappings

| Action | Bad (ambiguous) | Good (explicit) | |--------|-----------------|-----------------| | Read | "Read the file at X" | "RETRIEVE contents of: X" | | Write | "Put this in the file" | "WRITE to X: {content}" | | Check | "See if file has X" | "RETRIEVE contents of: X. Contains Y? YES/NO." | | Edit | "Change X to Y" | "EDIT file X: replace 'old' with 'new'" |

Directory Handoff Mechanism

Agents communicate via filesystem, not TaskOutput:

# Pattern implementation
OUTPUT_BASE = ".claude/cache/agents"

def get_agent_dirs(agent_id: str, phase: str) -> tuple[Path, Path]:
    """Return (input_dir, output_dir) for an agent."""
    input_dir = Path(OUTPUT_BASE) / f"{phase}_input"
    output_dir = Path(OUTPUT_BASE) / agent_id
    output_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
    return input_dir, output_dir

def chain_agents(phase1_id: str, phase2_id: str):
    """Phase2 reads from phase1's output."""
    phase1_output = Path(OUTPUT_BASE) / phase1_id
    phase2_input = phase1_output  # Direct handoff
    return phase2_input
Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Problem | Fix | |---------|---------|-----| | "Tell me what X contains" | May summarize or hallucinate | "Return the exact text" | | "Check the file" | Ambiguous action | Specify RETRIEVE or VERIFY | | Question form | Invites generation | Use imperative "RETRIEVE" | | "Read and confirm" | May just say "confirmed" | "Return the exact text" | | TaskOutput for handoff | Floods context with transcript | Directory-based handoff | | "Be thorough" | Subjective, inconsistent | Specify exact output format |

Expected Improvement
  • Without fixes: ~60% success rate
  • With RETRIEVE + explicit return: ~95% success rate
  • With structured tool schemas: ~98% success rate
  • With directory handoff: Context preserved, no transcript pollution
Code Map Injection

Use RepoPrompt to generate code map for agent context:

# Generate codemap for agent context
rp-cli --path . --output .claude/cache/agents/codemap.md

# Inject into agent system prompt
codemap=$(cat .claude/cache/agents/codemap.md)
Memory Context Injection

Explain the memory system to agents:

## MEMORY SYSTEM

You have access to a 3-tier memory system:

1. **Core Memory** (in-context): remember(key, value), recall(query)
   - Fast key-value store for current session facts

2. **Archival Memory** (searchable): store_fact(content), search_memory(query)
   - FTS5-indexed long-term storage
   - Use for findings that should persist

3. **Recall** (unified): recall(query)
   - Searches both core and archival
   - Returns formatted context string

All memory is scoped to session_id: {SESSION_ID}
References
  • ToolBench (2023): Models fail ~35% retrieval tasks with ambiguous descriptions
  • Gorilla (2023): Structured schemas improve reliability by 3x
  • ReAct (2022): Explicit reasoning before action reduces errors by ~25%
按 MIT 许可原样转载,未经改动 · 在 GitHub 查看 →

评论

登录即可评论;带「已验证安装」的,是发布者名下有本店的安装或持有记录。