# Three practical Claude prompt workflows

Original templates from CLSkills Hub for coding, editing and decisions. Replace the brackets with your task. These are examples of more specific briefs, not measured model transcripts or guaranteed improvements. Use your existing Claude access.

## Make a coding task checkable

A change is described as done, but you cannot tell what was checked.

**Vague brief:** Fix this bug and make sure it works.

**A more specific starting point:**

```text
Task: [describe the bug and expected behavior]
Reproduction: [steps or a failing test]
Scope: [files or component involved]

Inspect the relevant implementation before editing. Explain what evidence supports your diagnosis. Make the smallest change that addresses the reproduction.

Validate the original failing case and one nearby case that should still work. At the end, list:
1. What changed and why.
2. Each check actually run, its result, and any relevant output.
3. Checks not run and the reason.
4. Remaining uncertainty.

Do not label a check as passed if you did not run it. If tools are unavailable, provide the exact checks for me to run and mark them unverified.
```

**Check the result:** Compare the final report with the actual command output and diff. A convincing explanation is not evidence that a test ran.

**Limit:** A prompt cannot enforce permissions or prevent an unwanted action. Use tool permissions and repository controls for hard restrictions.

## Give an editor a usable voice brief

A draft is readable but sounds generic and adds claims you never supplied.

**Vague brief:** Make this sound more human.

**A more specific starting point:**

```text
Edit the draft below for [audience] who needs to [take a specific next step].
Keep the meaning and factual claims within the supplied source material.
Voice reference: [paste a short sample of your own writing that you have permission to use]
Prefer concrete nouns, direct verbs, and sentences I would say aloud.
Preserve necessary technical terms. Remove repeated points.
Do not invent statistics, testimonials, results, or personal experiences.
If a claim needs evidence, flag it separately instead of strengthening it.

Return the edited draft, followed by a short list of substantive changes and claims I should verify.
Draft: [paste your draft]
```

**Check the result:** Read it aloud, compare each factual claim with your sources, and ask whether the intended reader has a clear next step.

**Limit:** This is an editing brief, not an AI-detector bypass. A voice sample does not establish authorship or factual accuracy.

## Stress-test a decision before acting

You receive a confident recommendation without knowing which assumptions matter.

**Vague brief:** Is this a good idea?

**A more specific starting point:**

```text
Decision: [state the choice]
Goal: [what success means]
Constraints: [budget, time, available people]
Evidence available: [facts and sources]

Separate known facts from assumptions. Compare my proposed option with one plausible alternative and doing nothing.
For each option, describe the main benefit, cost, failure mode, and what remains unknown. Do not invent numeric estimates.
Identify the assumption most likely to change the decision. Suggest a small, reversible way to test it with my existing resources.
End with a conditional recommendation: choose X if Y is confirmed; otherwise reconsider Z.
```

**Check the result:** Look for an assumption you can actually test. Verify external claims before using the recommendation.

**Limit:** The model can miss alternatives or reinforce your framing. Use appropriate professional review for consequential decisions.

## Further reading and optional next steps

[Claude Code best practices](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/best-practices) provides official setup guidance. These templates are independent material, not official slash commands.

Disclosure: I run CLSkills Hub. You can [use the free interactive version](https://clskillshub.com/free-prompt-workflows?utm_source=github&utm_medium=gist&utm_campaign=september_2026) without signing up. The site also offers an optional $19 prompt reference and a $499 scoped prompt audit. The free prompts above stand on their own.