Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/cfircoo/claude-code-toolkit/create-meta-promptsnpx skills add cfircoo/claude-code-toolkit --skill create-meta-promptsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cfircoo/claude-code-toolkitWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/cfircoo/claude-code-toolkit/create-meta-prompts)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cfircoo/claude-code-toolkit/create-meta-prompts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cfircoo/claude-code-toolkit/create-meta-prompts.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00048 | $0.04507 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.02253 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00901 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00451 |
Grade A, and why
create-meta-prompts scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
98% identical to create-meta-prompts — 5 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 603 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Every execution produces a SUMMARY.md for quick human scanning without reading full outputs.
Each prompt gets its own folder in .prompts/ with its output artifacts, enabling clear provenance and chain detection.
<quick_start>
- Intake: Determine purpose (Do/Plan/Research/Refine), gather requirements
- Chain detection: Check for existing research/plan files to reference
- Generate: Create prompt using purpose-specific patterns
- Save: Create folder in
.prompts/{number}-{topic}-{purpose}/ - Present: Show decision tree for running
- Execute: Run prompt(s) with dependency-aware execution engine
- Summarize: Create SUMMARY.md for human scanning
<folder_structure>
.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
</folder_structure> </quick_start>
<automated_workflow>
<step_0_intake_gate>
<critical_first_action> BEFORE analyzing anything, check if context was provided.
IF no context provided (skill invoked without description): → IMMEDIATELY use AskUserQuestion with:
- header: "Purpose"
- question: "What is the purpose of this prompt?"
- options:
- "Do" - Execute a task, produce an artifact
- "Plan" - Create an approach, roadmap, or strategy
- "Research" - Gather information or understand something
- "Refine" - Improve an existing research or plan output
After selection, ask: "Describe what you want to accomplish" (they select "Other" to provide free text).
IF context was provided: → Check if purpose is inferable from keywords:
implement,build,create,fix,add,refactor→ Doplan,roadmap,approach,strategy,decide,phases→ Planresearch,understand,learn,gather,analyze,explore→ Researchrefine,improve,deepen,expand,iterate,update→ Refine
→ If unclear, ask the Purpose question above as first contextual question → If clear, proceed to adaptive_analysis with inferred purpose </critical_first_action>
<adaptive_analysis> Extract and infer:
- Purpose: Do, Plan, Research, or Refine
- Topic identifier: Kebab-case identifier for file naming (e.g.,
auth,stripe-payments) - Complexity: Simple vs complex (affects prompt depth)
- Prompt structure: Single vs multiple prompts
- Target (Refine only): Which existing output to improve
If topic identifier not obvious, ask:
- header: "Topic"
- question: "What topic/feature is this for? (used for file naming)"
- Let user provide via "Other" option
- Enforce kebab-case (convert spaces/underscores to hyphens)
For Refine purpose, also identify target output from .prompts/*/ to improve.
</adaptive_analysis>
<chain_detection>
Scan .prompts/*/ for existing *-research.md and *-plan.md files.
If found:
- List them: "Found existing files: auth-research.md (in 001-auth-research/), stripe-plan.md (in 005-stripe-plan/)"
- Use AskUserQuestion:
- header: "Reference"
- question: "Should this prompt reference any existing research or plans?"
- options: List found files + "None"
- multiSelect: true
What ships with it
10 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- README.md 4.3 KB
- references/do-patterns.md 5.8 KB
- references/intelligence-rules.md 7.3 KB
- references/metadata-guidelines.md 1.5 KB
- references/plan-patterns.md 6.3 KB
- references/question-bank.md 7.4 KB
- references/refine-patterns.md 7.2 KB
- references/research-patterns.md 18 KB
- references/research-pitfalls.md 7.3 KB
- references/summary-template.md 2.6 KB
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 5d ago First seen · 603 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A c7bc486ea8d0
create-meta-prompts is a skill published in the GitHub repository cfircoo/claude-code-toolkit (17 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 4,507 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to create-meta-prompts, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
llm-app-patterns
Production-ready patterns for building LLM applications. Covers RAG pipelines, agent architectures, prompt IDEs, and LLMOps monitoring. Use when designing AI applications, implementing RAG, building agents, or setting up LLM observability.
prompt-optimization
Improve a prompt on the evaluations workbench through a measured loop. Score the baseline first, then duplicate the target column, form a hypothesis from failing rows, edit the copy's prompt draft, run, compare pass rate and cost, and repeat until the numbers hold. Use when the user asks to optimize or improve a…
enhance-prompt
Transforms vague UI ideas into polished, Stitch-optimized prompts. Enhances specificity, adds UI/UX keywords, injects design system context, and structures output for better generation results.
prompt-engineer
Writes, refactors, and evaluates prompts for LLMs — generating optimized prompt templates, structured output schemas, evaluation rubrics, and test suites. Use when designing prompts for new LLM applications, refactoring existing prompts for better accuracy or token efficiency, implementing chain-of-thought or few-shot…
ideogram4
Prompting patterns for Ideogram 4 text-to-image — best-in-class in-image text rendering and exact color/layout control via structured JSON captions. Use when generating images that need legible on-image text (title cards, thumbnails, logos, signage, CTAs), precise brand colors, or controlled spatial layout. Triggers…
omh-model-optimization
This is a Hermes-native model-optimization workflow skill.