Meta-Prompting

Enhanced reasoning via

/commands

or natural language. Commands combine left-to-right:

/verify /adversarial

. Auto-trigger when context warrants — note which pattern applied.

Patterns

/think
|

/show

— Show reasoning step-by-step: decision points, alternatives considered, why each accepted/rejected. With

/think doubt

: after each step, flag what could be wrong and why before proceeding.

/adversarial
|

/argue

— After answering, argue against it. 3 strongest counterarguments ranked by severity. Identify blind spots and unstated assumptions.

/constrain
|

/strict

— Tight constraints: 3 sentences max, cite sources, no hedging. Override inline:

/constrain 5 sentences

/json
|

/format

— Respond in valid JSON code block, no surrounding prose unless asked. Default schema:

json

{"analysis": "", "confidence_score": 0-100, "methodology": "", "limitations": []}

Custom keys:

/json {keys: summary, risks, recommendation}

/budget
|

/deep

— Extended thinking space (~500 words) showing dead ends and reasoning pivots, then clearly separated final answer.

/compare
|

/vs

— Compare options as table. Default dimensions: speed, accuracy, cost, complexity, maintenance. Custom:

/compare [dim1, dim2]

/confidence
|

/conf

— Rate each claim 0-100. Flag below 70 as SPECULATIVE. Group by tier: HIGH (85+), MEDIUM (70-84), LOW (<70). Include assumptions made and rate each 1-10 on confidence.

/edge
|

/break

— 5+ inputs/scenarios that break the approach. Code: null/empty, concurrency, overflow, encoding, auth bypass. Strategies: market conditions, timing, dependencies. Auto-triggers on: security, validation, parsing contexts.

/verify
|

/check

— Three phases: (1) Answer direct response, (2) Challenge 3 ways it could be wrong, (3) Verify investigate each, update if needed. Mark final as

VERIFIED ANSWER:

REVISED ANSWER:

. Auto-triggers on: architecture decisions, critical choices, "Am I right?"

/flip
|

/alt

— Solve without the obvious approach. What's the second-best solution and when would it actually be better? Override:

/flip 3

for top 3 alternatives. Auto-triggers on: architecture decisions where the "easy" answer may break at scale.

/assumptions
|

/presume

— Before answering, list every implicit assumption in the question/task. Then answer with assumptions explicit. The assumption list is often more valuable than the answer. Auto-triggers on: architecture reviews, ambiguous requirements.

/tensions
|

/perspectives

— Answer from two named opposing perspectives (e.g., security engineer vs. shipping PM). Focus output on where they disagree — that's where the real insight lives. Override roles:

/tensions [devops, security]

Combos

/analyze
=

/think

/edge

/verify

— Code reviews, architecture, security-sensitive work. Auto-triggers on: code review requests.

/trade
=

/confidence

/adversarial

/edge

— Trade ideas, position analysis, market thesis. Auto-triggers on: trade/position discussions.

Conventions

Separate combined pattern outputs with
```
---
```
Keep core answer prominent — patterns enhance, not bury the response
New patterns can be defined mid-conversation ("Add
```
/eli5
```
for explain like I'm 5") — applied for the session

meta-prompting

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Meta-Prompting

Patterns

Combos

Conventions