Generate meta-prompts for Claude-to-Claude pipelines and multi-stage workflows. Use when creating optimized prompts for complex workflows, delegating to subagents, or managing multi-stage execution. Includes XML output structuring, metadata injection, and chain provenance. Not for simple single-turn prompts, manual messaging, or non-Claude integrations. Keywords: prompt chain, delegation, multi-stage, workflow orchestration, Claude-to-Claude.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill create-meta-prompts-git-fg-meta-plugin-manager --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Create Meta Prompts Git Fg Meta Plugin Manager?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/majiayu000-create-meta-prompts-git-fg-meta-plugin-manager-claude-skill-registry)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: create-meta-prompts
description: "Generate meta-prompts for Claude-to-Claude pipelines and multi-stage workflows. Use when creating optimized prompts for complex workflows, delegating to subagents, or managing multi-stage execution. Includes XML output structuring, metadata injection, and chain provenance. Not for simple single-turn prompts, manual messaging, or non-Claude integrations. Keywords: prompt chain, delegation, multi-stage, workflow orchestration, Claude-to-Claude."
---
<mission_control>
<objective>Generate meta-prompts for Claude-to-Claude pipelines with structured XML output and metadata for multi-stage workflows.</objective>
<success_criteria>Prompt folder created in .claude/workspace/prompts/, SUMMARY.md generated, chain provenance maintained</success_criteria>
</mission_control>
## Quick Start
**If you need to create a single prompt:** Follow Phase 1 (Intake) → Phase 2 (Generate) → Phase 3 (Present).
**If you need a prompt chain:** Use Chain Detection → Generate multiple prompts → Execute sequentially with dependency handling.
**If you need purpose-specific templates:** Reference ## PATTERN: Purpose Templates for Do/Plan/Research/Refine patterns.
## Navigation
| If you need... | Read this section... |
| :------------- | :------------------- |
| Create a meta-prompt | ## PATTERN: Workflow |
| Purpose-specific templates | ## PATTERN: Purpose Templates |
| Purpose inference | ## PATTERN: Autonomous Purpose Detection |
| Chain detection and dependencies | ## PATTERN: Dependency Management |
| Execution modes | ## PATTERN: Execution Engine |
| SUMMARY.md structure | ## PATTERN: SUMMARY.md Template |
| Common mistakes | ## ANTI-PATTERN: Common Mistakes |
| Quality verification | ## Recognition Questions |
## PATTERN: Workflow
**Generate and execute meta-prompts for multi-stage workflows:**
| Phase | Action | Result |
| :---- | :------ | :------ |
| **1. Intake** | Determine purpose, gather requirements | Clear prompt scope |
| **2. Chain Detection** | Check for existing research/plan files | Referenced context |
| **3. Generate** | Create prompt using purpose-specific patterns | Structured prompt folder |
| **4. Present** | Show decision tree for running | User can execute, review, or save |
| **5. Execute** | Run prompt(s) with dependency-aware engine | XML output with metadata |
| **6. Summarize** | Create SUMMARY.md for human scanning | Quick-ler + key findings |
### Folder Structure
```
.claude/workspace/prompts/
├── 001-auth-research/
│ ├── completed/
│ │ └── 001-auth-research.md # Prompt (archived after run)
│ ├── auth-research.md # Full output (XML for Claude)
│ └── SUMMARY.md # Executive summary (markdown for human)
├── 002-auth-plan/
│ ├── completed/
│ │ └── 002-auth-plan.md
│ ├── auth-plan.md
│ └── SUMMARY.md
├── 003-auth-implement/
│ ├── completed/
│ │ └── 003-auth-implement.md
│ └── SUMMARY.md # Do prompts create code elsewhere
├── 004-auth-research-refine/
│ ├── completed/
│ │ └── 004-auth-research-refine.md
│ ├── archive/
│ │ └── auth-research-v1.md # Previous version
│ └── SUMMARY.md
```
## PATTERN: Autonomous Purpose Detection
### 1. Purpose Gate (CRITICAL - First Action)
**BEFORE analyzing anything**, infer purpose from context.
**IF context provided:** Infer purpose from keywords:
- `implement`, `build`, `create`, `fix`, `add`, `refactor` → Do
- `plan`, `roadmap`, `approach`, `strategy`, `decide`, `phases` → Plan
- `research`, `understand`, `learn`, `gather`, `analyze`, `explore` → Research
- `refine`, `improve`, `deepen`, `expand`, `iterate`, `update` → Refine
**IF context unclear:** Trust inference from available information. Do not ask questions—proceed with best judgment.
### 2. Topic Identifier
Derive topic from context. Convert to kebab-case automatically:
- Spaces → hyphens
- CamelCase → kebab-case
- Underscores → hyphens
### 3. Chain Detection
Scan `.claude/workspace/prompts/*/` for existing `*-research.md` and `*-plan.md` files. If found:
```yaml
header: "Reference"
question: "Should this prompt reference any existing research or plans?"
options:
- label: "{file1}"
description: "Found in .prompts/{folder1}/"
- label: "{file2}"
description: "Found in .prompts/{folder2}/"
- label: "None"
description: "Start fresh without referencing existing files"
multiSelect: true
```
### 4. Purpose-Specific Questions
**For Do prompts:**
```yaml
header: "Output type"
question: "What are you creating?"
options:
- label: "Code/feature"
description: "Software implementation"
- label: "Document/content"
description: "Written material, documentation"
- label: "Design/spec"
description: "Architecture, wireframes, specifications"
```
```yaml
header: "Scope"
question: "What level of completeness?"
options:
- label: "Production-ready"
description: "Ship to users, needs polish and tests"
- label: "Working prototype"
description: "Functional but rough edges acceptable"
- label: "Proof of concept"
description: "Minimal viable demonstration"
```
**For Plan prompts:**
```yaml
header: "Plan for"
question: "What is this plan leading to?"
options:
- label: "Implementation"
description: "Break down how to build something"
- label: "Decision"
description: "Weigh options, choose an approach"
- label: "Process"
description: "Define workflow or methodology"
```
**For Research prompts:**
```yaml
header: "Depth"
question: "How deep should the research go?"
options:
- label: "Overview"
description: "High-level understanding, key concepts"
- label: "Comprehensive"
description: "Detailed exploration, multiple perspectives"
- label: "Exhaustive"
description: "Everything available, edge cases included"
```
**For Refine prompts:**
```yaml
header: "Target"
question: "Which output should be refined?"
options:
- label: "{file1}"
description: "In .prompts/{folder1}/"
- label: "{file2}"
description: "In .prompts/{folder2}/"
```
```yaml
header: "Improvement"
question: "What needs improvement?"
options:
- label: "Deepen analysis"
description: "Add more detail, examples, or rigor"
- label: "Expand scope"
description: "Cover additional areas or topics"
- label: "Correct errors"
description: "Fix factual mistakes or outdated info"
- label: "Restructure"
description: "Reorganize for clarity or usability"
```
### 5. Decision Gate
After receiving answers, present decision gate:
```yaml
header: "Ready"
question: "Ready to create the prompt?"
options:
- label: "Proceed"
description: "Create the prompt with current context"
- label: "Ask more questions"
description: "I have more details to clarify"
- label: "Let me add context"
description: "I want to provide additional information"
```
Loop until "Proceed" selected.
## PATTERN: Purpose Templates
### Do Pattern (Execution)
```xml
## Objective
{Clear statement of what to build/create/fix}
Purpose: {Why this matters, what it enables}
Output: {What artifact(s) will be produced}
## Context
{Referenced research/plan files if chained}
[topic]-research.md
[topic]-plan.md
{Project context}
[relevant-files]
## Requirements
{Specific functional requirements}
{Quality requirements}
{Constraints and boundaries}
## Implementation
{Specific approaches or patterns to follow}
{What to avoid and WHY}
{Integration points}
## Output
Create/modify files:
- `./path/to/file.ext` - {description}
## Verification
Before declaring complete:
- {Specific test or check}
- {How to confirm it works}
- {Edge cases to verify}
## Success Criteria
{Clear, measurable criteria}
- SUMMARY.md created with files list and next step
```
### Plan Pattern (Roadmaps)
```xml
## Objective
Create a {plan type} for {topic}.
Purpose: {What decision/implementation this enables}
Input: {Research or context being used}
Output: {topic}-plan.md with actionable phases/steps
## Context
Research findings: [research-file]
## Planning Requirements
{What the plan needs to address}
{Constraints to work within}
{Success criteria for the planned outcome}
## Output Structure
Save to: `.prompts/{num}-{topic}-plan/{topic}-plan.md`
Structure using XML:
```xml
<plan>
## Summary
{One paragraph overview of the approach}
<phases>
#### Phase 1: {Phase Name}
## Objective
{What this phase accomplishes}
## Tasks
<task priority="high">{Specific actionable task}
<task priority="medium">{Another task}
<deliverables>
<deliverable>{What's produced}
## Dependencies
{What must exist before this phase}
<!-- Additional phases -->
<metadata>
### {high|medium|low}
{Why this confidence level}
## Dependencies
{External dependencies needed}
<open_questions>
{Uncertainties that may affect execution}
## Assumptions
{What was assumed in creating this plan}
```
### Research Pattern (Information Gathering)
```xml
## Objective
Research {topic} to inform {subsequent use}.
Purpose: {What decision/implementation this enables}
Scope: {Boundaries of the research}
Output: {topic}-research.md with structured findings
## Research Scope
<include>
{What to investigate}
{Specific questions to answer}
<exclude>
{What's out of scope}
{What to defer to later research}
## Sources
Priority sources with exact URLs:
Official documentation:
- https://example.com/official-docs
Search queries:
- "{topic} best practices {current_year}"
- "{topic} latest version"
## Verification Checklist
□ Verify ALL known options (enumerate below)
□ Document exact file locations/URLs for each option
□ Verify precedence/hierarchy rules if applicable
□ Confirm syntax and examples from official sources
□ Check for recent updates or changes
## Output Structure
Save to: `.prompts/{num}-{topic}-research/{topic}-research.md`
Structure using XML:
```xml
<research>
## Summary
{2-3 paragraph executive summary of key findings}
<findings>
<finding category="{category}">
<title>{Finding title}
<detail>{Detailed explanation}
<source>{Where this came from}
<relevance>{Why this matters for the goal}
<recommendations>
<recommendation priority="high">
<action>{What to do}
## Rationale
{Why}
<code_examples>
{Relevant code patterns, snippets, configurations}
<metadata>
### {high|medium|low}
{Why this confidence level}
## Dependencies
{What's needed to act on this research}
<open_questions>
{What couldn't be determined}
## Assumptions
{What was assumed}
<quality_report>
<sources_consulted>
{List URLs of official documentation}
<claims_verified>
{Key findings verified with official sources}
<claims_assumed>
{Findings based on inference or incomplete information}
```
```
### Refine Pattern (Iteration)
```xml
## Objective
Refine {topic}-{original_purpose} based on feedback.
Target: [prompt-file]
Current summary: [summary-file]
Purpose: {What improvement is needed}
Output: Updated {topic}-{original_purpose}.md with improvements
## Context
Original output: [prompt-file]
<feedback>
{Specific issues to address}
{What was missing or insufficient}
{Areas needing more depth}
<preserve>
{What worked well and should be kept}
{Structure or findings to maintain}
## Requirements
- Address all feedback points
- Maintain original structure and metadata format
- Keep what worked from previous version
- Update confidence based on improvements
## Output
1. Archive current to: `.prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/archive/{topic}-{original_purpose}-v{n}.md`
2. Write improved to: `.prompts/{num}-{topic}-{original_purpose}/{topic}-{original_purpose}.md`
3. Create SUMMARY.md with version info and changes
```
## PATTERN: Dependency Management
### Detection
Scan prompt contents for cross-references to determine dependencies:
1. Parse each prompt for `.claude/workspace/prompts/{number}-{topic}/` patterns
2. Build dependency graph
3. Detect cycles (error if found)
4. Determine execution order
### Inference Rules
If no explicit cross-references found, infer from purpose:
- Research prompts: No dependencies (can run parallel)
- Plan prompts: Depend on same-topic research
- Do prompts: Depend on same-topic plan
Override with explicit references when present.
### Missing Dependencies
If a prompt references output that doesn't exist:
1. Check if it's another prompt in this session (will be created)
2. Check if it exists in `.claude/workspace/prompts/*/` (already completed)
3. If truly missing: Warn user and offer options
## PATTERN: Execution Engine
### Single Prompt
1. Read prompt file contents
2. Delegate to implementation specialist
3. Include: complete prompt contents, output location
4. Wait for completion
5. Validate output
6. Archive prompt to `completed/` subfolder
7. Report results with next-step options
### Sequential Execution
For chained prompts where each depends on previous output.
1. Build execution queue from dependency order
2. For each prompt:
a. Read prompt file
b. Spawn Task agent
c. Wait for completion
d. Validate output
e. If validation fails → stop, report failure, offer recovery
f. If success → archive prompt, continue
3. Report consolidated results
**Progress Reporting:**
```
Executing 1/3: 001-auth-research... ✅
Executing 2/3: 002-auth-plan... ✅
Executing 3/3: 003-auth-implement... (running)
```
### Parallel Execution
For independent prompts with no dependencies.
1. Read all prompt files
2. **CRITICAL**: Spawn ALL Task agents in a SINGLE message
3. Wait for all to complete
4. Validate all outputs
5. Archive all prompts
6. Report consolidated results
### Mixed Dependencies (DAGs)
For complex graphs (e.g., two parallel research → one plan).
1. Analyze dependency graph from file references
2. Group into execution layers:
- Layer 1: No dependencies (run parallel)
- Layer 2: Depends only on layer 1
- Layer 3: Depends on layer 2, etc.
3. Execute each layer (parallel within, sequential between)
4. Stop if any dependency fails
**Example:**
```
Layer 1 (parallel): 001-api-research, 002-db-research
Layer 2 (after layer 1): 003-architecture-plan
```
## PATTERN: SUMMARY.md Template
Every executed prompt creates this file for human scanning:
```markdown
# {Topic} {Purpose} Summary
**{Substantive one-liner describing outcome}**
## Version
{v1 or "v2 (refined from v1)"}
## Changes from Previous
{Only include if v2+}
## Key Findings
- {Most important finding or action}
- {Second key item}
- {Third key item}
## Files Created
{Only include for Do prompts}
- `path/to/file.ts` - Description
## Decisions Needed
{Specific actionable decisions, or "None"}
## Blockers
{External impediments, or "None"}
## Next Step
{Concrete forward action}
---
*Confidence: {High|Medium|Low}*
*Iterations: {n}*
*Full output: {filename.md}*
```
### One-Liner Requirements
Must be substantive - describes actual outcome, not status.
| Good | Bad |
| :--- | :--- |
| "JWT with jose library and httpOnly cookies recommended" | "Research completed" |
| "4-phase implementation: types → JWT core → refresh → tests" | "Plan created" |
| "JWT middleware complete with 6 files in src/auth/" | "Implementation finished" |
### Purpose Variations
- **Research**: Emphasize key recommendation, decision readiness. Next step: Create plan.
- **Plan**: Emphasize phase breakdown, assumptions needing validation. Next step: Execute first phase.
- **Do**: Emphasize files created, test status. Next step: Run tests or execute next phase.
- **Refine**: Emphasize what improved, version number. Include Changes from Previous.
## PATTERN: Metadata Requirements
For Research and Plan outputs, require XML metadata:
```xml
<metadata>
### {high|medium|low}
{Why this confidence level}
## Dependencies
{External requirements that must be met}
<open_questions>
{What couldn't be determined or needs validation}
## Assumptions
{Context assumed that might need validation}
```
### Confidence Levels
- **high**: Official docs, verified patterns, clear consensus, few unknowns
- **medium**: Mixed sources, some outdated info, minor gaps, reasonable approach
- **low**: Sparse documentation, conflicting info, significant unknowns, best guess
## ANTI-PATTERN: Common Mistakes
### Mistake 1: Skipping Chain Detection
❌ **Wrong:** Created new research prompt without checking existing prompts → Duplicate work.
✅ **Correct:** Before generating, scan `.claude/workspace/prompts/*/` for existing research/plan files → Reference existing outputs.
### Mistake 2: Missing Metadata in Research/Plan Outputs
❌ **Wrong:** Prompt outputs research.md without `<confidence>`, `<dependencies>`, `<assumptions>` → Planning prompt lacks context.
✅ **Correct:** Include metadata requirements in prompt template.
### Mistake 3: Empty SUMMARY.md
❌ **Wrong:** Created SUMMARY.md with "Research completed" → No value for human scanning.
✅ **Correct:** Require substantive SUMMARY.md with one-liner, key findings, decisions, blockers, next step.
### Mistake 4: No Validation Before Archiving
❌ **Wrong:** Archived prompt immediately after execution without checking output → Broken chains continue downstream.
✅ **Correct:** Validate before archiving: file exists, not empty, required metadata present, SUMMARY.md created.
### Mistake 5: Sequential Failure Without Stop
❌ **Wrong:** Prompt 2 of 3 failed → Continued to prompt 3 → Waste.
✅ **Correct:** For sequential chains, stop immediately on failure:
```
❌ Failed at 2/3: 002-auth-plan
Completed: 001-auth-research ✅
Not started: 003-auth-implement
```
### Mistake 6: Missing Decision Tree
❌ **Wrong:** Created prompt → Immediately executed → User had no opportunity to review.
✅ **Correct:** Present decision tree after prompt creation:
```
Prompt created. What's next?
1. Run now
2. Review/edit first
3. Save for later
```
### Mistake 7: Asking Instead of Inferring
❌ **Wrong:** Ask "What do you want?" without attempting inference first.
✅ **Correct:** Trust ability to infer from context. If context is sparse, make educated assumptions and proceed.
## EDGE: Validation
### Output Validation Checklist
After each prompt completes, verify:
1. **File exists**: Check output file was created
2. **Not empty**: File has content (> 100 chars)
3. **Metadata present** (for research/plan): Check for required XML tags
4. **SUMMARY.md exists**: Check SUMMARY.md was created
5. **SUMMARY.md complete**: Has required sections
6. **One-liner is substantive**: Not generic like "Research completed"
### Validation Failure Handling
If validation fails:
- Report what's missing
- Offer options:
- Retry the prompt
- Continue anyway (for non-critical issues)
- Stop and investigate
### Sequential Failure
Stop the chain immediately:
```
❌ Failed at 2/3: 002-auth-plan
Completed:
- 001-auth-research ✅ (archived)
Failed:
- 002-auth-plan: Output file not created
Not started:
- 003-auth-implement
What's next?
1. Retry 002-auth-plan
2. View error details
3. Stop here (keep completed work)
```
### Parallel Failure
Continue others, report all results:
```
Parallel execution completed with errors:
✅ 001-api-research (archived)
❌ 002-db-research: Validation failed - missing <confidence> tag
✅ 003-ui-research (archived)
What's next?
1. Retry failed prompt (002)
2. View error details
3. Continue without 002
```
## Recognition Questions
| Question | Recognition |
| :------- | :---------- |
| Purpose identified correctly? | Do/Plan/Research/Refine inferred from context |
| Topic identifier derived? | kebab-case format, auto-converted |
| Chain detection performed? | Existing research/plan files scanned and referenced |
| Correct purpose template used? | Do/Plan/Research/Refine pattern matched to purpose |
| Purpose inferred autonomously? | No AskUserQuestion used—trust inference |
| Prompt folder created correctly? | `.claude/workspace/prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/` |
| Output location specified? | Prompt includes file path for output |
| SUMMARY.md requirement included? | All prompts require human-scannable summary |
| Metadata requirements included? | Research/Plan outputs require XML metadata |
| Validation checklist complete? | File exists, content present, metadata valid |
---
<critical_constraint>
**Portability Invariant:** This skill must work in a project with ZERO external rules access (no CLAUDE.md, CLAUDE.local.md, or .claude/rules/ dependencies). All necessary patterns and philosophy are self-contained in this file. Never use relative paths pointing outside the skill itself. When referencing other components, use: "invoke `skill-name`" or "invoke `skill-name` and read its file".
</critical_constraint>
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!