Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

prompt-debugger提示调试器

Agent Skill

用于辅助提示词、系统指令、Agent 行为约束和工作流模板的整理。它适合让 Agent 规范任务边界、统一输出格式、拆分操作步骤或优化提示词可复用性。使用时需要保留真实业务约束,不要把示例当硬规则;涉及自动执行、外部工具或高风险操作时,应在提示词中明确确认步骤、权限边界和失败处理方式。

总安装

1,388

周安装

59

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

486
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:prompt-debugger(提示调试器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/charlie-morrison/prompt-debugger
安装命令:
openclaw skills install prompt-debugger
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install prompt-debugger

简介

诊断异常 AI 输出的专用调试提示生成器,定位故障根源。

  • 适用于识别歧义指令、冲突规则与模型行为偏差场景。
  • 通过对比测试与结果分析揭示潜在问题模式。
  • 需配合具体错误现象选择对应的调试策略模板。
  • 安装方式:通过 clawhub 平台使用 openclaw skills install prompt-debugger 命令部署。

SKILL.md

name
prompt-debugger
description
Debug prompts that produce unexpected AI outputs — diagnose failure modes, identify ambiguity and conflicting instructions, test variations, compare model responses, and iteratively improve prompt quality.

Prompt Debugger

When a prompt isn't working as expected, systematically diagnose why and fix it. Identifies common failure patterns (ambiguity, conflicting instructions, missing context, wrong format specification), tests variations, and produces an improved version.

Use when: "why isn't this prompt working", "debug my prompt", "improve this prompt", "the AI keeps doing X instead of Y", "prompt not producing expected output", "prompt optimization", or iterating on system prompts.

Commands

1. diagnose — Analyze a Failing Prompt

Given a prompt and its undesired output, identify the root cause.

Step 1: Structural Analysis

Read the prompt and check for common failure patterns:

Ambiguity Checks:

  • Vague instructions ("make it better", "be more specific", "improve this")
  • Missing output format specification
  • Unclear scope ("analyze this" — analyze what aspect?)
  • Pronoun confusion ("it", "this", "that" without clear referent)
  • Multiple possible interpretations of key terms

Conflict Checks:

  • Contradictory instructions ("be concise" + "explain in detail")
  • Competing priorities without ranking ("be accurate AND fast AND creative")
  • Format conflicts (asking for both structured and freeform output)
  • Tone conflicts ("be professional" + "be casual and fun")
  • Length conflicts (word limits vs. comprehensive coverage)

Context Checks:

  • Missing role/persona specification
  • No examples of desired output
  • Assumed knowledge not stated
  • Missing constraints (length, format, audience, tone)
  • No success criteria ("how would I know if the output is good?")

Instruction Clarity:

  • Nested conditionals that are hard to follow
  • Too many instructions competing for attention
  • Critical instructions buried in the middle
  • Instructions that depend on prior instructions but aren't ordered
  • Implicit assumptions that should be explicit

Step 2: Failure Mode Classification

Categorize the issue:

Failure ModeSymptomsCommon Fix
Instruction FollowingIgnores specific requirementsMove to top, bold, repeat
Format ViolationWrong output structureAdd explicit format example
HallucinationMakes up factsAdd "only use provided info"
Scope CreepAnswers more than askedAdd "only address X, nothing else"
Scope DeficitAnswers less than askedBreak into numbered sub-questions
Tone MismatchWrong voice/registerProvide tone examples
OverthinkingToo verbose/philosophicalAdd "be direct, no preamble"
UnderthinkingToo shallow/genericAdd "think step by step" + require specifics
Context WindowLoses early instructionsRepeat key constraints at end

Step 3: Generate Fix Hypotheses

For each identified issue, propose specific prompt edits:

Issue 1: Ambiguous instruction "analyze the data"
  → Fix: "Analyze the data by calculating the mean, median, and standard deviation for each column. Report any outliers (>2 standard deviations from mean)."

Issue 2: Missing output format
  → Fix: Add "Output format: JSON with keys {summary, findings, recommendations}"

Issue 3: Conflicting constraints
  → Fix: "Prioritize accuracy over brevity. If you must choose between being complete and being concise, be complete."

2. compare — A/B Test Prompt Variations

Generate 3-5 variations of a prompt, each targeting a different failure mode fix.

## Variation A: Original (baseline)
[original prompt]
Expected improvement: none (baseline for comparison)

## Variation B: Explicit format
[prompt + format specification]
Target fix: format violation

## Variation C: Role + examples
[prompt + persona + 2 examples]
Target fix: tone mismatch, underthinking

## Variation D: Constraints tightened
[prompt + explicit constraints + negative examples]
Target fix: scope creep, hallucination

## Variation E: Restructured
[reordered prompt with critical instructions first/last]
Target fix: instruction following

For each variation, explain what was changed and why.

3. rewrite — Produce an Improved Prompt

Apply all identified fixes to produce a single improved prompt.

Rewrite principles:

  1. Critical instructions go first AND last (primacy + recency effects)
  2. One instruction per line/bullet (no compound sentences)
  3. Include 1-2 examples of desired output
  4. Specify what NOT to do (negative examples) for common failure modes
  5. Define success criteria explicitly
  6. Use markdown formatting for structure (headers, bullets, bold for emphasis)
  7. Add explicit output format specification

Before/After format:

### Before
[original prompt — highlight problematic areas]

### After
[improved prompt — annotate what changed and why]

### Changes Made
1. Added role specification ("You are a senior data analyst...")
2. Replaced "analyze" with specific analytical steps
3. Added output format (JSON schema)
4. Moved length constraint to the end (recency)
5. Added negative example ("Do NOT include...")

4. patterns — Common Prompt Patterns Library

Reference of proven prompt patterns for common tasks:

Chain of Thought:

Think through this step by step:
1. First, identify...
2. Then, analyze...
3. Finally, recommend...
Show your reasoning for each step.

Few-Shot:

Here are examples of the expected output:

Input: [example 1 input]
Output: [example 1 output]

Input: [example 2 input]
Output: [example 2 output]

Now process:
Input: [actual input]
Output:

Constraint Sandwich:

[CRITICAL CONSTRAINTS — read first]
[Main task instructions]
[CRITICAL CONSTRAINTS — repeated for emphasis]

Persona + Task + Format:

You are [specific role] with [specific expertise].
Your task is to [specific action] for [specific audience].
Output as [specific format] with [specific requirements].

Self-Verification:

After generating your response, verify:
- Does it address all N requirements?
- Is it under X words?
- Does it follow the specified format?
If not, revise before outputting.

5. score — Rate Prompt Quality

Score a prompt on multiple dimensions (0-10 each):

DimensionScoreAssessment
Clarity7/10Instructions are clear but "analyze" is ambiguous
Specificity4/10Missing format, length, audience
Completeness6/10Has context but no examples
Consistency8/10No conflicting instructions
Testability3/10No success criteria defined
Overall5.6/10Needs format spec and examples

Provide the top 3 improvements that would most increase the score.

6. anti-patterns — Detect Common Prompt Anti-Patterns

Scan a prompt for known problematic patterns:

  • Hedge language: "Try to", "if possible", "maybe", "perhaps" (weakens instructions)
  • Overloading: More than 7 distinct instructions (cognitive load)
  • Vague quantifiers: "some", "several", "a few", "many" (replace with numbers)
  • Double negatives: "don't not include" → "include"
  • Passive voice instructions: "the data should be analyzed" → "analyze the data"
  • Escape hatches: "unless you think otherwise" (invites non-compliance)
  • Meta-instructions: Spending tokens on "you are an AI" preamble
  • Repeat-after-me: Asking the AI to confirm instructions (wastes tokens)

Output Formats

  • text (default): Diagnostic report with annotated prompt
  • json: {diagnosis: {issues: [], failure_modes: [], fixes: []}, rewrite: "", score: {}, anti_patterns: []}
  • markdown: Report suitable for documentation or sharing

Notes

  • Works with any LLM prompt (system prompts, user prompts, agent instructions, SKILL.md files)
  • Does not execute prompts — analyzes structure and content statically
  • Failure mode classification is based on common patterns, not guaranteed causes
  • For best results, provide both the prompt AND an example of the undesired output
  • The rewrite is a starting point — always test with your specific model and use case
  • Different models respond differently to the same prompt — fixes may need model-specific tuning

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenClaw

75.39%
按下载量换算366

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills