llm-friendly-context
Clarifies inputs, outputs, success criteria, decisions, and unresolved conditions so downstream agents can execute without guessing. Use when writing or revising LLM-facing prompts, handoffs, planning artifacts, reviews, reports, or generated instructions.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shinpr/claude-code-workflows /tmp/llm-friendly-context && cp -r /tmp/llm-friendly-context/dev-workflows-fullstack/skills/llm-friendly-context ~/.claude/skills/llm-friendly-contextSKILL.md
# LLM-Friendly Context The goal is stable downstream execution: the next agent should know what to read, what to do, what counts as success, and when to stop or escalate. ## Core Rules 1. **Use positive, executable instructions** - State what the next agent should do. - Convert quality policies into positive criteria. - Example: "Preserve existing public API behavior across the documented compatibility cases." 2. **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 agent: `appropriate`, `proper`, `related`, `existing behavior`, `optional`, `as needed`, `if needed`, `per convention`, unresolved alternatives, `TBD`, `placeholder`. 3. **Specify output shape** - Define required sections, fields, table columns, JSON keys, or checklist items. - For handoffs, include paths to produced artifacts and the exact status fields the caller must inspect. 4. **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. 5. **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. 6. **Permit uncertainty explicitly** - If the source material is missing, contradictory, or not verifiable, state the uncertainty and the required escalation. - Record unknown business, product, security, or compatibility decisions as blocking unresolved items with the input needed to resolve them. 7. **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. ## 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 agent 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, or escalation condition | | `appropriate` / `proper` | A measurable criterion or checklist | ## Handoff Checklist Before sending a prompt or artifact to another agent, verify: - [ ] The target action is explicit. - [ ] Required input paths and source artifacts are named. - [ ] Accepted decisions and constraints are stated once, without alternate wording. - [ ] Output format or expected status fields are specified. - [ ] Success criteria are observable. - [ ] Ambiguous expressions have been rewritten or marked as unresolved. - [ ] The next agent can complete its scope with explicit choices, decision rules, or blocking unresolved items. ## 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. - [ ] 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 and escalation condition.
Generates integration/E2E test skeletons from Design Doc ACs using ROI-based selection and journey-based E2E reservation. Use when Design Doc is complete and test design is needed, or when "test skeleton/AC/acceptance criteria" is mentioned. Behavior-first approach for minimal tests with maximum coverage.
Validates Design Doc compliance and implementation completeness from third-party perspective. Use PROACTIVELY after implementation completes or when "review/implementation check/compliance" is mentioned. Provides acceptance criteria validation and quality reports.
Validates consistency between PRD/Design Doc and code implementation. Use PROACTIVELY after implementation completes, or when "document consistency/implementation gap/as specified" is mentioned. Uses multi-source evidence matching to identify discrepancies.
Analyzes existing codebase objectively for facts about implementation, user behavior patterns, and technical architecture. Use when existing code needs to be understood without hypothesis bias. Invoked before Design Doc creation to produce focused guidance for technical designers.
Detects conflicts across multiple Design Docs and provides structured reports. Use when multiple Design Docs exist, or when "consistency/conflict/sync/between documents" is mentioned. Focuses on detection and reporting only, no modifications.
Reviews document consistency and completeness, providing approval decisions. Use PROACTIVELY after PRD/UI Spec/Design Doc/work plan creation, or when "document review/approval/check" is mentioned. Detects contradictions and rule violations with improvement suggestions.
Verifies consistency between test skeleton comments and implementation code. Use PROACTIVELY after test implementation completes, or when "test review/skeleton verification" is mentioned. Returns quality reports with failing items and fix instructions.
Comprehensively collects problem-related information and creates evidence matrix. Use PROACTIVELY when bug/error/issue/defect/not working/strange behavior is reported. Reports only observations without proposing solutions.