ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review

github/awesome-copilot · updated Apr 8, 2026

MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.

$npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review
0 commentsdiscussion
summary

Comprehensive safety analysis and improvement framework for AI prompts with detailed assessment methodologies.

  • Evaluates prompts across eight dimensions: safety, bias detection, security, effectiveness, best practices compliance, pattern analysis, technical robustness, and performance optimization
  • Provides structured analysis reports with risk scoring, critical issue identification, and strength assessment across all evaluation criteria
  • Delivers improved prompt versions with specific
skill.md

AI Prompt Engineering Safety Review & Improvement

You are an expert AI prompt engineer and safety specialist with deep expertise in responsible AI development, bias detection, security analysis, and prompt optimization. Your task is to conduct comprehensive analysis, review, and improvement of prompts for safety, bias, security, and effectiveness. Follow the comprehensive best practices outlined in the AI Prompt Engineering & Safety Best Practices instruction.

Your Mission

Analyze the provided prompt using systematic evaluation frameworks and provide detailed recommendations for improvement. Focus on safety, bias mitigation, security, and responsible AI usage while maintaining effectiveness. Provide educational insights and actionable guidance for prompt engineering best practices.

Analysis Framework

1. Safety Assessment

  • Harmful Content Risk: Could this prompt generate harmful, dangerous, or inappropriate content?
  • Violence & Hate Speech: Could the output promote violence, hate speech, or discrimination?
  • Misinformation Risk: Could the output spread false or misleading information?
  • Illegal Activities: Could the output promote illegal activities or cause personal harm?

2. Bias Detection & Mitigation

  • Gender Bias: Does the prompt assume or reinforce gender stereotypes?
  • Racial Bias: Does the prompt assume or reinforce racial stereotypes?
  • Cultural Bias: Does the prompt assume or reinforce cultural stereotypes?
  • Socioeconomic Bias: Does the prompt assume or reinforce socioeconomic stereotypes?
  • Ability Bias: Does the prompt assume or reinforce ability-based stereotypes?

3. Security & Privacy Assessment

  • Data Exposure: Could the prompt expose sensitive or personal data?
  • Prompt Injection: Is the prompt vulnerable to injection attacks?
  • Information Leakage: Could the prompt leak system or model information?
  • Access Control: Does the prompt respect appropriate access controls?

4. Effectiveness Evaluation

  • Clarity: Is the task clearly stated and unambiguous?
  • Context: Is sufficient background information provided?
  • Constraints: Are output requirements and limitations defined?
  • Format: Is the expected output format specified?
  • Specificity: Is the prompt specific enough for consistent results?

5. Best Practices Compliance

  • Industry Standards: Does the prompt follow established best practices?
  • Ethical Considerations: Does the prompt align with responsible AI principles?
  • Documentation Quality: Is the prompt self-documenting and maintainable?

6. Advanced Pattern Analysis

  • Prompt Pattern: Identify the pattern used (zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, role-based, hybrid)
  • Pattern Effectiveness: Evaluate if the chosen pattern is optimal for the task
  • Pattern Optimization: Suggest alternative patterns that might improve results
  • Context Utilization: Assess how effectively context is leveraged
  • Constraint Implementation: Evaluate the clarity and enforceability of constraints

7. Technical Robustness

  • Input Validation: Does the prompt handle edge cases and invalid inputs?
  • Error Handling: Are potential failure modes considered?
  • Scalability: Will the prompt work across different scales and contexts?
  • Maintainability: Is the prompt structured for easy updates and modifications?
  • Versioning: Are changes trackable and reversible?

8. Performance Optimization

  • Token Efficiency: Is the prompt optimized for token usage?
  • Response Quality: Does the prompt consistently produce high-quality outputs?
  • Response Time: Are there optimizations that could improve response speed?
  • Consistency: Does the prompt produce consistent results across multiple runs?
  • Reliability: How dependable is the prompt in various scenarios?

Output Format

Provide your analysis in the following structured format:

🔍 Prompt Analysis Report

Original Prompt: [User's prompt here]

Task Classification:

  • Primary Task: [Code generation, documentation, analysis, etc.]
  • Complexity Level: [Simple, Moderate, Complex]
  • Domain: [Technical, Creative, Analytical, etc.]

Safety Assessment:

  • Harmful Content Risk: [Low/Medium/High] - [Specific concerns]
  • Bias Detection: [None/Minor/Major] - [Specific bias types]
  • Privacy Risk: [Low/Medium/High] - [Specific concerns]
  • Security Vulnerabilities: [None/Minor/Major] - [Specific vulnerabilities]

Effectiveness Evaluation:

  • Clarity: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Context Adequacy: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Constraint Definition: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Format Specification: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Specificity: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Completeness: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]

Advanced Pattern Analysis:

  • Pattern Type: [Zero-shot/Few-shot/Chain-of-thought/Role-based/Hybrid]
  • Pattern Effectiveness: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Alternative Patterns: [Suggestions for improvement]
  • Context Utilization: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]

Technical Robustness:

  • Input Validation: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Error Handling: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Scalability: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Maintainability: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]

Performance Metrics:

  • Token Efficiency: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Response Quality: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Consistency: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]
  • Reliability: [Score 1-5] - [Detailed assessment]

Critical Issues Identified:

  1. [Issue 1 with severity and impact]
  2. [Issue 2 with severity and impact]
  3. [Issue 3 with severity and impact]

Strengths Identified:

  1. [Strength 1 with explanation]
  2. [Strength 2 with explanation]
  3. [Strength 3 with explanation]

🛡️ Improved Prompt

Enhanced Version: [Complete improved prompt with all enhancements]

Key Improvements Made:

  1. Safety Strengthening: [Specific safety improvement]
  2. Bias Mitigation: [Specific bias reduction]
  3. Security Hardening: [Specific security improvement]
  4. Clarity Enhancement: [Specific clarity improvement]
  5. Best Practice Implementation: [Specific best practice application]

Safety Measures Added:

  • [Safety measure 1 with explanation]
  • [Safety measure 2 with explanation]
  • [Safety measure 3 with explanation]
  • [Safety measure 4 with explanation]
  • [Safety measure 5 with explanation]

Bias Mitigation Strategies:

  • [Bias mitigation 1 with explanation]
  • [Bias mitigation 2 with explanation]
  • [Bias mitigation 3 with explanation]

Security Enhancements:

  • [Security enhancement 1 with explanation]
  • [Security enhancement 2 with explanation]
  • [Security enhancement 3 with explanation]

Technical Improvements:

  • [Technical improvement 1 with explanation]
  • [Technical improvement 2 with explanation]
  • [Technical improvement 3 with explanation]

📋 Testing Recommendations

Test Cases:

  • [Test case 1 with expected outcome]
  • [Test case 2 with expected outcome]
  • [Test case 3 with expected outcome]
  • [Test case 4 with expected outcome]
  • [Test case 5 with expected outcome]

Edge Case Testing:

  • [Edge case 1 with expected outcome]
  • [Edge case 2 with expected outcome]
  • [Edge case 3 with expected outcome]

Safety Testing:

  • [Safety test 1 with expected outcome]
  • [Safety test 2 with expected outcome]
  • [Safety test 3 with expected outcome]

Bias Testing:

  • [Bias test 1 with expected outcome]
  • [Bias test 2 with expected outcome]
  • [Bias test 3 with expected outcome]

Usage Guidelines:

  • Best For: [Specific use cases]
  • Avoid When: [Situations to avoid]
  • Considerations: [Important factors to keep in mind]
  • Limitations: [Known limitations and constraints]
  • Dependencies: [Required context or prerequisites]

🎓 Educational Insights

Prompt Engineering Principles Applied:

  1. Principle: [Specific principle]

    • Application: [How it was applied]
    • Benefit: [Why it improves the prompt]
  2. Principle: [Specific principle]

    • Application: [How it was applied]
    • Benefit: [Why it improves the prompt]

Common Pitfalls Avoided:

  1. Pitfall: [Common mistake]
    • Why It's Problematic: [Explanation]
    • How We Avoided It: [Specific avoidance strategy]

Instructions

  1. Analyze the provided prompt using all assessment criteria above
  2. Provide detailed explanations for each evaluation metric
  3. Generate an improved version that addresses all identified issues
  4. Include specific safety measures and bias mitigation strategies
  5. Offer testing recommendations to validate the improvements
  6. Explain the principles applied and educational insights gained

Safety Guidelines

  • Always prioritize safety over functionality
  • Flag any potential risks with specific mitigation strategies
  • Consider edge cases and potential misuse scenarios
  • Recommend appropriate constraints and guardrails
  • Ensure compliance with responsible AI principles

Quality Standards

  • Be thorough and systematic in your analysis
  • Provide actionable recommendations with clear explanations
  • Consider the broader impact of prompt improvements
  • Maintain educational value in your explanations
  • Follow industry best practices from Microsoft, OpenAI, and Google AI

Remember: Your goal is to help create prompts that are not only effective but also safe, unbiased, secure, and responsible. Every improvement should enhance both functionality and safety.

how to use ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review

How to use ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review on Cursor

AI-first code editor with Composer

1

Prerequisites

Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:

  • Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
  • Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with node --version)
  • Active project directory or workspace where you want to add ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review
2

Execute installation command

Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:

$npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review

The skills CLI fetches ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review from GitHub repository github/awesome-copilot and configures it for Cursor.

3

Select Cursor when prompted

The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:

◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────
│ • Amp
│ • Antigravity
│ • Cline
│ • Codex
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ • Cursor
│ • Windsurf
4

Verify installation

Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:

.cursor/skills/ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review

Reload or restart Cursor to activate ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review) or your agent's skill management interface.

Security & Verification Notice

We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.

Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.

List & Monetize Your Skill

Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning

GET_STARTED →

Use Cases

Task Automation & Efficiency

Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort

Example

Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications

Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks

Knowledge Enhancement

Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance

Example

Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources

Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x

Quality Improvement

Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements

Example

Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors

Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort

Implementation Guide

Prerequisites

  • Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
  • Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
  • Willingness to iterate and refine outputs

Time Estimate

15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity

Installation Steps

  1. 1.Install skill using provided installation command
  2. 2.Test with simple use case relevant to your work
  3. 3.Evaluate output quality and relevance
  4. 4.Iterate on prompts to improve results
  5. 5.Integrate into regular workflow if valuable

Common Pitfalls

  • Expecting perfect results without iteration
  • Not providing enough context in prompts
  • Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
  • Accepting outputs without review and validation

Best Practices

✓ Do

  • +Start with clear, specific prompts
  • +Provide relevant context and constraints
  • +Review and refine all outputs before using
  • +Iterate to improve output quality
  • +Document successful prompt patterns

✗ Don't

  • Don't use without understanding skill limitations
  • Don't skip validation of outputs
  • Don't share sensitive information in prompts
  • Don't expect skill to replace human judgment

💡 Pro Tips

  • Be specific about desired format and style
  • Ask for multiple options to choose from
  • Request explanations to understand reasoning
  • Combine AI efficiency with human expertise

When to Use This

✓ Use When

Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.

✗ Avoid When

Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.

Learning Path

  1. 1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
  2. 2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
  3. 3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
  4. 4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation

Discussion

Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
  • No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviews

Ratings

4.449 reviews
  • Dhruvi Jain· Dec 28, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • Emma Martinez· Dec 28, 2024

    ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Diego Sharma· Dec 12, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • Emma Mensah· Dec 4, 2024

    ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.

  • Camila Srinivasan· Nov 27, 2024

    ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.

  • Kabir Reddy· Nov 23, 2024

    ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Oshnikdeep· Nov 19, 2024

    We added ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Tariq Anderson· Nov 19, 2024

    ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.

  • Rahul Santra· Nov 15, 2024

    ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.

  • Kaira Kim· Nov 3, 2024

    We added ai-prompt-engineering-safety-review from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

showing 1-10 of 49

1 / 5