agentica-prompts
- Repo stars 3,783
- Author updated Live
- Author repo Continuous-Claude-v3
- Domain
- AI
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @parcadei · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Plug-and-play
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- Python
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: agentica-prompts
description: Write reliable prompts for Agentica/REPL agents that avoid LLM instruction ambiguity Write promp…
category: ai
runtime: Python
---
# agentica-prompts output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Write reliable prompts for Agentica/REPL agents that avoid LLM instruction ambiguity Write prompts that Agentica agents reliably follow. Standard natural language prompts fail ~35% of the time due to LLM instruction ambiguity. runs entirely locally; runs on Python. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “The Orchestration Pattern / Agent System Prompt Template / AGENT IDENTITY” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Write reliable prompts for Agentica/REPL agents that avoid LLM instruction ambiguity Write prompts that Agentica agents reliably follow. Standard natural language prompts fail ~35% of the time due to LLM instruction ambiguity. runs entirely locally; runs on Python. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “The Orchestration Pattern / Agent System Prompt Template / AGENT IDENTITY” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “The Orchestration Pattern / Agent System Prompt Template / AGENT IDENTITY”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: agentica-prompts
description: Write reliable prompts for Agentica/REPL agents that avoid LLM instruction ambiguity Write promp…
category: ai
source: parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3
---
# agentica-prompts
## When to use
- Write reliable prompts for Agentica/REPL agents that avoid LLM instruction ambiguity Write prompts that Agentica agent…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “The Orchestration Pattern / Agent System Prompt Template / AGENT IDENTITY” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "agentica-prompts" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> The Orchestration Pattern / Agent System Prompt Template / AGENT IDENTITY
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> Python | read files, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} 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%
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review