Prompt Refinement

Refine vague or unclear prompts into precise, actionable instructions using L1/L2/L3/L4 methodology.

Critical Methodology (MANDATORY)

MANDATORY: Understand L1/L2/L3/L4 refinement levels before refining prompts.

WRONG LEVEL = POOR RESULTS:

L1 (too simple): Misses critical context → Claude makes wrong assumptions
L2/L3 (appropriate): Right balance → Good results
L4 (too complex): Template for simple task → Wasted tokens, over-constrained

LEVEL SELECTION CRITERIA:

L1: Single-sentence outcome (quick clarifications)
L2: Context-rich paragraph (most prompts - DEFAULT)
L3: Structured bullets (complex tasks, multiple constraints)
L4: Template/framework (ONLY for reusable patterns)

CRITICAL: Default to L2. Only use L3/L4 when justified. Over-structuring wastes tokens and under-structuring misses requirements.

Core Methodology

FROM_SCRATCH method: Convert user's goal/topic into outcome + minimal context + hard constraints REFINE method: Delete fluff, keep only constraints that actually change the answer

Default: Produce prompts as a single plain-text paragraph (no Markdown) Escalate: Use keypoints (L3) and templates (L4) only when justified

Non-Negotiables to Preserve

Always keep:

Tech stack/platform/environment constraints
Forbidden approaches ("no external deps", "no web calls")
Compliance requirements
Hard output format requirements (must be JSON / must be ≤N words)
Measurable success targets (latency, accuracy, coverage)

Execution Process

When user provides prompt to refine:

STEP 1: Parse Input

Extract user's raw prompt text
Determine if FROM_SCRATCH or REFINE scenario
Identify missing context, constraints, or deliverables

STEP 2: Apply Refinement

FROM_SCRATCH: Convert goal → outcome + context + hard constraints
REFINE: Remove step-by-step instructions, obvious best practices, tone fluff, redundant examples
Keep: Only constraints that actually change the answer

STEP 3: Structure Output

Generate exactly:

L1: One-sentence outcome statement
L2: Context-rich paragraph with constraints (no Markdown)
L3: Structured bullets (Task/Constraints/Output)
L4: Template/framework (only if complex/reusable)
Rationale: 2-4 sentences explaining minimal-yet-sufficient approach

STEP 4: Deliver

Output ONLY the refined prompt in the exact format:

L1: [outcome statement]
L2: [context-rich paragraph with constraints]
L3:
- **Task:** [description]
- **Constraints:** [key constraints]
- **Output:** [deliverables]
L4:

[TEMPLATE ONLY IF JUSTIFIED - use ```code blocks for templates]

Rationale: [2-4 sentences explaining approach]

Example

Input: "Create a marketing website"

Output:

L1: Create a conversion-optimized landing page
L2: You are a senior web developer creating a high-converting landing page for [PRODUCT]. Focus on clear value proposition, social proof placement, and frictionless CTA design. Use modern CSS Grid/Flexbox layouts with mobile-first approach. Ensure WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility compliance. Prioritize page speed optimization and SEO fundamentals. Output a complete, deployable website with semantic HTML, optimized images, and conversion tracking setup.
L3:
- **Task:** Create landing page for [PRODUCT] with conversion optimization
- **Constraints:** Mobile-first responsive design; WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility; <3s load time; semantic HTML; SEO-ready
- **Output:** Complete deployable website with HTML/CSS/JS files + performance audit + accessibility report
L4:

Landing Page Requirements

Value Proposition

[Clear benefit statement in headline]
[Supporting subheading]
[Visual hero element]

Conversion Elements

[Primary CTA placement]
[Secondary CTA for hesitant users]
[Social proof testimonials]

Technical Specs

Responsive breakpoints: 320px, 768px, 1024px
Performance budget: <150KB total, <3s load
Accessibility: WCAG 2.1 AA checklist

Rationale: The refined prompt provides clear technical constraints (mobile-first, WCAG compliance, performance budget) while maintaining creative flexibility. The L4 template ensures consistent deliverable structure across different landing pages while allowing product-specific customization.

Critical Rules

Output ONLY the refined prompt - never the methodology
Use L4 template only for complex or reusable scenarios
Maintain all non-negotiable constraints from original input
Ask at most ONE question if ambiguity blocks producing useful refinement

Contrast:

Good: Output L1→L2→L3→L4→Rationale format
Good: Remove fluff, keep constraints that change answers
Bad: Include methodology explanation in output
Bad: Use L4 when simple prompt

Validation check: Refinement provides clear, actionable instructions if it includes: 1) L1 outcome statement, 2) L2 context with constraints, 3) L3 structure, 4) L4 template if needed.

Genetic Code

This component carries essential Seed System principles for context: fork isolation:

<critical_constraint> MANDATORY: All components MUST be self-contained (zero .claude/rules dependency) MANDATORY: Achieve 80-95% autonomy (0-5 AskUserQuestion rounds per session) MANDATORY: Description MUST use What-When-Not format in third person MANDATORY: No component references another component by name in description MANDATORY: Progressive disclosure - references/ for detailed content MANDATORY: Use XML for control (mission_control, critical_constraint), Markdown for data No exceptions. Portability invariant must be maintained. </critical_constraint>

Delta Standard: Good Component = Expert Knowledge − What Claude Already Knows

Recognition Questions:

"Would Claude know this without being told?" → Delete (zero delta)
"Can this work standalone?" → Fix if no (non-self-sufficient)
"Did I read the actual file, or just see it in grep?" → Verify before claiming

<critical_constraint> MANDATORY: Output ONLY the refined prompt (no methodology explanations) MANDATORY: Default to L2 unless complexity justifies L3/L4 MANDATORY: Preserve all non-negotiable constraints from original input MANDATORY: Ask at most ONE question if ambiguity blocks refinement No exceptions. Refinement is about clarity, not elaboration. </critical_constraint>