agentica-prompts▌
parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Write prompts that Agentica agents reliably follow. Standard natural language prompts fail ~35% of the time due to LLM instruction ambiguity.
Agentica Prompt Engineering
Write prompts that Agentica agents reliably follow. Standard natural language prompts fail ~35% of the time due to LLM instruction ambiguity.
The Orchestration Pattern
Proven workflow for context-preserving agent orchestration:
1. RESEARCH (Nia) → Output to .claude/cache/agents/research/
↓
2. PLAN (RP-CLI) → Reads research, outputs .claude/cache/agents/plan/
↓
3. VALIDATE → Checks plan against best practices
↓
4. IMPLEMENT (TDD) → Failing tests first, then pass
↓
5. REVIEW (Jury) → Compare impl vs plan vs research
↓
6. DEBUG (if needed) → Research via Nia, don't assume
Key: Use Task (not TaskOutput) + directory handoff = clean context
Agent System Prompt Template
Inject this into each agent's system prompt for rich context understanding:
## AGENT IDENTITY
You are {AGENT_ROLE} in a multi-agent orchestration system.
Your output will be consumed by: {DOWNSTREAM_AGENT}
Your input comes from: {UPSTREAM_AGENT}
## SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
You are part of the Agentica orchestration framework:
- Memory Service: remember(key, value), recall(query), store_fact(content)
- Task Graph: create_task(), complete_task(), get_ready_tasks()
- File I/O: read_file(), write_file(), edit_file(), bash()
Session ID: {SESSION_ID} (all your memory/tasks scoped here)
## DIRECTORY HANDOFF
Read your inputs from: {INPUT_DIR}
Write your outputs to: {OUTPUT_DIR}
Output format: Write a summary file and any artifacts.
- {OUTPUT_DIR}/summary.md - What you did, key findings
- {OUTPUT_DIR}/artifacts/ - Any generated files
## CODE CONTEXT
{CODE_MAP} <- Inject RepoPrompt codemap here
## YOUR TASK
{TASK_DESCRIPTION}
## CRITICAL RULES
1. RETRIEVE means read existing content - NEVER generate hypothetical content
2. WRITE means create/update file - specify exact content
3. When stuck, output what you found and what's blocking you
4. Your summary.md is your handoff to the next agent - be precise
Pattern-Specific Prompts
Swarm (Research)
## SWARM AGENT: {PERSPECTIVE}
You are researching: {QUERY}
Your unique angle: {PERSPECTIVE}
Other agents are researching different angles. You don't need to be comprehensive.
Focus ONLY on your perspective. Be specific, not broad.
Output format:
- 3-5 key findings from YOUR perspective
- Evidence/sources for each finding
- Uncertainties or gaps you identified
Write to: {OUTPUT_DIR}/{PERSPECTIVE}/findings.md
Hierarchical (Coordinator)
## COORDINATOR
Task to decompose: {TASK}
Available specialists (use EXACTLY these names):
{SPECIALIST_LIST}
Rules:
1. ONLY use specialist names from the list above
2. Each subtask should be completable by ONE specialist
3. 2-5 subtasks maximum
4. If task is simple, return empty list and handle directly
Output: JSON list of {specialist, task} pairs
Generator/Critic (Generator)
## GENERATOR
Task: {TASK}
{PREVIOUS_FEEDBACK}
Produce your solution. The Critic will review it.
Output structure (use EXACTLY these keys):
{
"solution": "your main output",
"code": "if applicable",
"reasoning": "why this approach"
}
Write to: {OUTPUT_DIR}/solution.json
Generator/Critic (Critic)
## CRITIC
Reviewing solution at: {SOLUTION_PATH}
Evaluation criteria:
1. Correctness - Does it solve the task?
2. Completeness - Any missing cases?
3. Quality - Is it well-structured?
If APPROVED: Write {"approved": true, "feedback": "why approved"}
If NOT approved: Write {"approved": false, "feedback": "specific issues to fix"}
Write to: {OUTPUT_DIR}/critique.json
Jury (Voter)
## JUROR #{N}
Question: {QUESTION}
Vote independently. Do NOT try to guess what others will vote.
Your vote should be based solely on the evidence.
Output: Your vote as {RETURN_TYPE}
Verb Mappings
| Action | Bad (ambiguous) | Good (explicit) |
|---|---|---|
| Read | "Read the file at X" | "RETRIEVE contents of: X" |
| Write | "Put this in the file" | "WRITE to X: {content}" |
| Check | "See if file has X" | "RETRIEVE contents of: X. Contains Y? YES/NO." |
| Edit | "Change X to Y" | "EDIT file X: replace 'old' with 'new'" |
Directory Handoff Mechanism
Agents communicate via filesystem, not TaskOutput:
# Pattern implementation
OUTPUT_BASE = ".claude/cache/agents"
def get_agent_dirs(agent_id: str, phase: str) -> tuple[Path, Path]:
"""Return (input_dir, output_dir) for an agent."""
input_dir = Path(OUTPUT_BASE) / f"{phase}_input"
output_dir = Path(OUTPUT_BASE) / agent_id
output_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
return input_dir, output_dir
def chain_agents(phase1_id: str, phase2_id: str):
"""Phase2 reads from phase1's output."""
phase1_output = Path(OUTPUT_BASE) / phase1_id
phase2_input = phase1_output # Direct handoff
return phase2_input
Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| "Tell me what X contains" | May summarize or hallucinate | "Return the exact text" |
| "Check the file" | Ambiguous action | Specify RETRIEVE or VERIFY |
| Question form | Invites generation | Use imperative "RETRIEVE" |
| "Read and confirm" | May just say "confirmed" | "Return the exact text" |
| TaskOutput for handoff | Floods context with transcript | Directory-based handoff |
| "Be thorough" | Subjective, inconsistent | Specify exact output format |
Expected Improvement
- Without fixes: ~60% success rate
- With RETRIEVE + explicit return: ~95% success rate
- With structured tool schemas: ~98% success rate
- With directory handoff: Context preserved, no transcript pollution
Code Map Injection
Use RepoPrompt to generate code map for agent context:
# Generate codemap for agent context
rp-cli --path . --output .claude/cache/agents/codemap.md
# Inject into agent system prompt
codemap=$(cat .claude/cache/agents/codemap.md)
Memory Context Injection
Explain the memory system to agents:
## MEMORY SYSTEM
You have access to a 3-tier memory system:
1. **Core Memory** (in-context): remember(key, value), recall(query)
- Fast key-value store for current session facts
2. **Archival Memory** (searchable): store_fact(content), search_memory(query)
- FTS5-indexed long-term storage
- Use for findings that should persist
3. **Recall** (unified): recall(query)
- Searches both core and archival
- Returns formatted context string
All memory is scoped to session_id: {SESSION_ID}
References
- ToolBench (2023): Models fail ~35% retrieval tasks with ambiguous descriptions
- Gorilla (2023): Structured schemas improve reliability by 3x
- ReAct (2022): Explicit reasoning before action reduces errors by ~25%
How to use agentica-prompts on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
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 agentica-prompts
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches agentica-prompts from GitHub repository parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate agentica-prompts. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /agentica-prompts) 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
Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.7★★★★★68 reviews- ★★★★★Mia Huang· Dec 28, 2024
agentica-prompts fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Hana Rahman· Dec 28, 2024
We added agentica-prompts from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Yusuf Gonzalez· Dec 24, 2024
agentica-prompts reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Hana Johnson· Dec 24, 2024
I recommend agentica-prompts for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Hiroshi Martin· Dec 24, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: agentica-prompts is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Mia Park· Dec 24, 2024
agentica-prompts is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Chinedu Torres· Nov 19, 2024
agentica-prompts reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Rahul Santra· Nov 15, 2024
agentica-prompts fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Mia Mehta· Nov 15, 2024
We added agentica-prompts from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Hana Mensah· Nov 15, 2024
Useful defaults in agentica-prompts — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
showing 1-10 of 68