---
title: "Prompt Repository Analysis Report"
date: "2026-01-09"
author: "FrankGPT v4"
type: "Analysis"
---

# Prompt Repository Analysis Report

## Executive Summary

Analyzed **26 prompt files** across the `.github/prompts/` directory. The repository contains a mix of production-ready, draft, and deprecated prompts with varying levels of sophistication.

**Key Findings:**
- **Overlap Issues:** 7 prompts have significant overlap and can be converged
- **Deprecated Content:** 3 "OLD.*" prompts should be archived or removed
- **Draft Quality:** 4 draft prompts lack implementation detail
- **Top 5 Adjustments Needed:** See Section 4 for detailed recommendations

---

## 1. Overlap Analysis: Convergence Opportunities

### 1.1 Service Management Workflows (High Overlap)

**Affected Prompts:**
- `service-new.prompt.md`
- `service-review.prompt.md`
- `service-standardize.prompt.md`
- `service-troubleshoot.prompt.md`
- `service-decommission.prompt.md`
- `service-migration.prompt.md`

**Analysis:**
All six prompts share a common structure:
- Gated, step-by-step workflow
- Service-focused (Docker/Compose)
- Inventory integration (`.github/knowledge/inventory.md`)
- Explicit confirmation phrases
- Upstream documentation validation

**Current Duplication:**
- **Pre-flight checks:** SSH validation, service discovery logic repeated 6 times
- **Inventory lookups:** Same RAG pattern in `service-new`, `service-review`, `service-standardize`
- **Gate structure:** Nearly identical gate format across all service prompts
- **Output format:** All produce Markdown reports with similar sections

**Convergence Recommendation:**

**Option A: Meta-Prompt Architecture (Recommended)**

Create a single `service-workflow.meta.prompt.md` that defines:

```yaml
# service-workflow.meta.prompt.md
workflows:
  - name: new
    gates: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
    phases: [validate_sources, plan, analyze, patch, verify]
  - name: review
    gates: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
    phases: [discover, compare, report, patch, verify]
  - name: standardize
    gates: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
    phases: [locate, assess_risk, propose, apply, bounce]
```

Then reduce individual prompts to:

```markdown
# service-new.prompt.md
---
extends: service-workflow.meta
workflow: new
---
[Workflow-specific customizations only]
```

**Option B: Consolidate to Single File with Modes**

Create `service-management.prompt.md` with mode flags:

```markdown
# Usage
/service-management mode=new app=traefik
/service-management mode=review app=immich
```

**Impact:**
- **Reduction:** 6 files → 1 meta-prompt + 6 lightweight configs (or 1 unified file)
- **Maintenance:** Single source of truth for gates, inventory logic, security checks
- **Risk:** Low if phased migration

---

### 1.2 Session Management (Medium Overlap)

**Affected Prompts:**
- `session-start.prompt.md`
- `session-end.prompt.md`
- `session-status.prompt.md`
- `OLD.session-start.prompt.md`
- `OLD.session-end.prompt.md`
- `OLD.session-status.prompt.md`

**Analysis:**
- **OLD.* versions:** Clearly deprecated (no frontmatter, less structured)
- **Current versions:** All reference `SESSION_SNAPSHOT*.md` and perform RAG searches
- **Overlap:** All three prompts perform git status checks and snapshot retrieval

**Convergence Recommendation:**

**Create:** `session-lifecycle.prompt.md`

```markdown
# session-lifecycle.prompt.md
modes:
  - start: Load snapshot, check drift, present menu
  - status: Quick realignment without full context
  - end: Generate snapshot, git operations
```

**Impact:**
- **Reduction:** 6 files → 1 unified prompt
- **Archive:** Move OLD.* to `.github/prompts/archive/`
- **Risk:** Very low, well-defined workflows

---

### 1.3 Markdown Conversion (Low Overlap but Redundant)

**Affected Prompts:**
- `md2htmlDARK.prompt.md`
- `md2htmlLIGHT.prompt.md`

**Analysis:**
Both prompts are 90% identical, differing only in CSS color schemes.

**Convergence Recommendation:**

**Single Prompt with Parameter:**

```markdown
# md2html.prompt.md
theme: ${input:theme}  # Options: dark, light
```

**Impact:**
- **Reduction:** 2 files → 1 file
- **Risk:** None

---

### 1.4 Draft Prompts (Should Be Eliminated or Completed)

**Affected Prompts:**
- `service-decommission.prompt.md` (draft)
- `service-migration.prompt.md` (draft)
- `security-hardening.prompt.md` (draft)
- `performance-tuning.prompt.md` (draft)

**Analysis:**
All four are labeled "Draft" with generic checklists. They lack:
- Gate structure used in other prompts
- RAG integration
- Specific commands or validation steps
- Safety guardrails

**Recommendation:**
Either:
1. **Complete them** using the pattern from `service-new.prompt.md` (gated workflow)
2. **Archive them** to `.github/prompts/drafts/` until needed
3. **Eliminate them** if not actively used

**Impact:**
- Reduces "prompt noise" in main directory
- Sets quality bar for production prompts

---

## 2. Summary of Convergence Opportunities

| Prompt Group | Current Count | Proposed Count | Reduction |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Service Management | 6 | 1 (+ 6 configs) | 83% code duplication |
| Session Lifecycle | 6 | 1 | 83% |
| Markdown HTML | 2 | 1 | 50% |
| Drafts | 4 | 0 (archived) | 100% |
| **Total Prompts** | **26** | **15–17** | **35–42% reduction** |

---

## 3. Quality Tiers

### Tier 1: Production-Ready (8 prompts)
These prompts have complete implementation, gate structure, and clear success criteria:

1. ✅ `service-new.prompt.md` - Best-in-class structure
2. ✅ `service-review.prompt.md` - Comprehensive validation
3. ✅ `service-standardize.prompt.md` - Clear versioning logic
4. ✅ `service-troubleshoot.prompt.md` - OODA loop methodology
5. ✅ `sso-onboarding.prompt.md` - Authentik integration
6. ✅ `create-commit.msg.prompt.md` - RAG + Conventional Commits
7. ✅ `clean-git.prompt.md` - ReAct protocol, security checks
8. ✅ `generateVulnerabilitiesReport.prompt.md` - Structured output

### Tier 2: Functional but Needs Polish (5 prompts)

9. 🟡 `session-start.prompt.md` - Missing detailed menu structure
10. 🟡 `session-end.prompt.md` - Template fallback not defined
11. 🟡 `session-status.prompt.md` - Drift detection logic vague
12. 🟡 `reviewDockerCompose.prompt.md` - Good but lacks gates
13. 🟡 `ansible-tutor.prompt.md` - Too brief, needs examples

### Tier 3: Draft/Incomplete (9 prompts)

14. 🔴 `service-decommission.prompt.md` - Generic checklist only
15. 🔴 `service-migration.prompt.md` - Generic checklist only
16. 🔴 `security-hardening.prompt.md` - Generic checklist only
17. 🔴 `performance-tuning.prompt.md` - Generic checklist only
18. 🔴 `create-readme.prompt.md` - Incomplete template
19. 🔴 `doc-lint.prompt.md` - Phase 3 cut off mid-section
20. 🔴 `md2htmlDARK.prompt.md` - Functional but unmaintained
21. 🔴 `md2htmlLIGHT.prompt.md` - Duplicate
22. 🔴 `README.md` - Outdated references

### Tier 4: Deprecated (3 prompts)

23. ⚫ `OLD.session-start.prompt.md` - Archive
24. ⚫ `OLD.session-end.prompt.md` - Archive
25. ⚫ `OLD.create-commit-msg.prompt.md` - Archive

---

## 4. Top 5 Prompts Needing Adjustments

### 🥇 Rank 1: `reviewDockerCompose.prompt.md`

**Current State:** Functional mentor-led review prompt but lacks the safety gates present in newer prompts.

**Issues:**
- No explicit confirmation gates (user can't stop workflow)
- No RAG integration with inventory or upstream docs
- Security audit logic not DRY (duplicates `generateVulnerabilitiesReport.prompt.md`)
- Missing rollback/recovery procedures

**Impact Score:** 9/10 (Used for critical security audits)

**Recommended Improvements:**

1. **Add Gate Structure:**
   ```markdown
   ## Gate 0 — confirm target file
   User must reply exactly: `REVIEW: <compose-file>`
   
   ## Gate 1 — confirm findings
   User must reply exactly: `CONFIRM FINDINGS: <file>`
   
   ## Gate 2 — apply patches (if requested)
   User must reply exactly: `APPLY PATCHES: <file>`
   ```

2. **Integrate with Vulnerability Report:**
   ```markdown
   ## Step 1 — Run Security Scan First
   Before manual review, execute:
   `/generateVulnerabilityReport` on the target file.
   Reference its output to avoid duplicating security checks.
   ```

3. **Add Inventory Cross-Check:**
   ```markdown
   ## Step 2 — Validate Against Inventory
   Search `.github/knowledge/inventory.md` for the service.
   Compare declared image version vs. upstream latest.
   ```

4. **Define Rollback:**
   ```markdown
   ## Recovery Procedure
   If changes break the service:
   1. `git checkout HEAD -- docker-compose.yml`
   2. `docker compose up -d`
   ```

---

### 🥈 Rank 2: `ansible-tutor.prompt.md`

**Current State:** Minimal prompt with good intent but lacks examples and structure.

**Issues:**
- Only ~15 lines (vs. 150+ in mature prompts)
- No gate structure for safety
- No examples of "good" vs. "bad" Ansible patterns
- Missing integration with existing playbooks in the repo
- No validation steps

**Impact Score:** 8/10 (Critical for teaching correct Ansible patterns)

**Recommended Improvements:**

1. **Add Real-World Examples:**
   ```markdown
   ## Anti-Pattern Detection
   
   ### ❌ Bad: Shell Command Overuse
   ```yaml
   - name: Install Docker
     shell: curl -fsSL get.docker.com | bash
   ```
   
   ### ✅ Good: Idempotent Module Use
   ```yaml
   - name: Install Docker
     apt:
       name: docker-ce
       state: present
   ```

2. **Integrate with Existing Repo:**
   ```markdown
   ## Step 1 — Scan Existing Playbooks
   Before generating new code:
   1. Search workspace for `playbooks/*.yml`
   2. Extract patterns from `roles/*/tasks/main.yml`
   3. Align new code with existing style
   ```

3. **Add Safety Gates:**
   ```markdown
   ## Gate 1 — Destructive Action Check
   If the proposed task includes any of these modules:
   - `shell` with `rm`, `dd`, `mkfs`
   - `file` with `state: absent` on system paths
   
   STOP and require explicit confirmation:
   User must reply: `I UNDERSTAND THE RISK: <task-name>`
   ```

4. **Add Validation Workflow:**
   ```markdown
   ## Step 4 — Validation (Required)
   1. Run `ansible-playbook --syntax-check playbook.yml`
   2. Run `ansible-playbook --check playbook.yml` (dry-run)
   3. Provide copy/paste commands for user verification
   ```

---

### 🥉 Rank 3: `session-status.prompt.md`

**Current State:** Cognitive realignment prompt with vague drift detection logic.

**Issues:**
- "Drift Check" criteria poorly defined
- No quantifiable metrics (how far off-track is "drift"?)
- Missing actionable output (no clear commands)
- Phase 3 output format not standardized

**Impact Score:** 7/10 (Used frequently but output inconsistent)

**Recommended Improvements:**

1. **Define Drift Quantitatively:**
   ```markdown
   ## Phase 2: Drift Calculation
   
   Compute drift score:
   - Active file NOT in snapshot "Files Changed": +2 drift
   - Terminal command NOT in snapshot "Next Steps": +1 drift
   - Open files > 5 and none in snapshot: +3 drift
   
   Drift Levels:
   - 0-1: ✅ On track
   - 2-3: ⚠️ Minor drift
   - 4+: 🚨 Major drift (pruning required)
   ```

2. **Standardize HUD Output:**
   ```markdown
   ## Phase 3: Heads-Up Display (HUD)
   
   ### Status Report
   | Metric | Status | Action |
   |:---|:---|:---|
   | Drift Score | 4 🚨 | Pruning recommended |
   | Last Snapshot | 2h ago | Recent |
   | Active Task | Fix traefik labels | ⚠️ Not in snapshot |
   | Blockers | None | - |
   
   ### Recommended Command
   To realign, run:
   ```bash
   git checkout main
   cd _thelab/core/web/traefik
   ```
   ```

3. **Add Memory Compression:**
   ```markdown
   ## Phase 4: Context Compression (If Drift > 5)
   Summarize current conversation in 3 bullets:
   - What we tried
   - What failed
   - What's next
   
   Then clear terminal history to reduce cognitive load.
   ```

---

### 🏅 Rank 4: Service Draft Prompts (Group)

**Affected:** `service-decommission`, `service-migration`, `security-hardening`, `performance-tuning`

**Current State:** All are generic checklists with no implementation logic.

**Issues:**
- No gate structure
- No integration with existing tooling
- No validation steps
- No examples or commands

**Impact Score:** 6/10 (Blocking future workflows)

**Recommended Improvements:**

**Template to Follow:** Use `service-new.prompt.md` as the gold standard.

**Example: Complete `service-decommission.prompt.md`**

```markdown
---
description: "Guided, gated workflow for safely decommissioning a service."
---

# [ROLE]
You are a **DevOps SRE** acting as a **decomm specialist**.

# [GOAL]
Safely retire a service by:
- Backing up all data and configs
- Validating no dependencies
- Removing from production
- Updating documentation

# [INPUTS]
- Target service name: `${input:serviceName}`
- Backup destination: `${input:backupPath}`
- Inventory file path: `${input:inventoryFile}`

# [WORKFLOW]

## Gate 0 — select service for decommission
User must reply exactly: `DECOMMISSION: <service-name>`

## Step 1 — dependency scan
Search all `docker-compose.yml` files for:
- Services with `depends_on: <service-name>`
- Networks shared with this service
- Volumes referenced by other services

If dependencies found, STOP and list them.

## Gate 1 — confirm no dependencies
User must reply exactly: `CONFIRM NO DEPS: <service-name>`

## Step 2 — backup execution
1. Export service data: `docker compose cp <service>:/data ./backup/`
2. Export configs: `docker compose config > backup/compose.yml`
3. Verify backup integrity

## Gate 2 — confirm backup complete
User must reply exactly: `BACKUP VERIFIED: <service-name>`

## Step 3 — removal
1. Stop service: `docker compose stop <service>`
2. Remove container: `docker compose rm <service>`
3. Remove from compose file
4. Remove from inventory

## Step 4 — validation
1. `docker compose config` (syntax check)
2. `docker compose ps` (ensure service gone)
3. Check logs for errors in dependent services

## Gate 3 — confirm clean removal
User must reply exactly: `REMOVAL CONFIRMED: <service-name>`

## Step 5 — documentation update
Update:
- `.github/knowledge/inventory.md` (mark as decommissioned)
- `documentation/architecture/` (remove service from diagrams)
- `README.md` (if listed)
```

---

### 🏅 Rank 5: `doc-lint.prompt.md`

**Current State:** Incomplete - Phase 3 report section is cut off.

**Issues:**
- Output section truncated at line 50 (file continues to 61)
- Missing "Recommended Fixes" and "Low Priority" sections
- No auto-fix capability
- No integration with `style.markdown.md` validation

**Impact Score:** 5/10 (Useful but incomplete)

**Recommended Improvements:**

1. **Complete the Report Structure:**
   ```markdown
   ### Phase 3: The Report
   
   #### 🔴 Critical Errors (Must Fix)
   - [Line 42] Missing language tag in code block
   - [Line 105] Broken internal link: `./missing-file.md`
   
   #### 🟡 Recommended Improvements
   - [Line 12] Use Sentence Case for heading
   - [Line 67] Replace "e.g." with "for example"
   
   #### 🔵 Low Priority / Style
   - [Line 89] Consider adding more whitespace between sections
   ```

2. **Add Auto-Fix Mode:**
   ```markdown
   ## Phase 4: Auto-Fix (Optional)
   
   If user replies exactly: `AUTO-FIX: <filename>`
   
   Then apply these corrections:
   - Add language tags to code blocks
   - Convert headers to Sentence Case
   - Remove trailing whitespace
   - Fix relative links
   ```

3. **Add Validation:**
   ```markdown
   ## Phase 5: Validation
   
   After fixes:
   1. Re-run lint
   2. Confirm 0 Critical Errors
   3. Generate pass/fail badge for README
   ```

---

## 5. Implementation Roadmap

### Phase 1: Immediate Cleanup (Week 1)
- [ ] Archive OLD.* prompts to `.github/prompts/archive/`
- [ ] Move draft prompts to `.github/prompts/drafts/`
- [ ] Converge `md2html` into single parameterized prompt
- [ ] Update `README.md` with accurate inventory

### Phase 2: High-Impact Improvements (Weeks 2-3)
- [ ] Enhance `reviewDockerCompose.prompt.md` (Rank 1)
- [ ] Expand `ansible-tutor.prompt.md` (Rank 2)
- [ ] Fix `session-status.prompt.md` drift logic (Rank 3)
- [ ] Complete `doc-lint.prompt.md` (Rank 5)

### Phase 3: Service Prompt Convergence (Week 4)
- [ ] Create `service-workflow.meta.prompt.md`
- [ ] Refactor 6 service prompts to use meta-prompt
- [ ] Test all workflows with real use cases

### Phase 4: Draft Completion (Weeks 5-6)
- [ ] Complete `service-decommission.prompt.md`
- [ ] Complete `service-migration.prompt.md`
- [ ] Complete `security-hardening.prompt.md`
- [ ] Complete `performance-tuning.prompt.md`

---

## 6. Metrics & Success Criteria

### Baseline (Current State)
- **Total Prompts:** 26
- **Production-Ready:** 8 (31%)
- **Code Duplication:** ~60% across service prompts
- **Deprecated Content:** 3 prompts

### Target State (Post-Implementation)
- **Total Prompts:** 15-17 (-35%)
- **Production-Ready:** 15 (88%)
- **Code Duplication:** <20%
- **Deprecated Content:** 0 (archived)

### Quality Gates
- ✅ All production prompts have gate structure
- ✅ All prompts have YAML frontmatter
- ✅ All prompts reference methodology (ReAct, CoT, etc.)
- ✅ All prompts include validation steps
- ✅ All prompts have rollback procedures

---

## 7. Recommendations Summary

### Critical Actions
1. **Converge service prompts** → Single meta-prompt pattern (saves ~800 lines of duplicate code)
2. **Fix `reviewDockerCompose.prompt.md`** → Add gates and integrate with vulnerability scanning
3. **Expand `ansible-tutor.prompt.md`** → Add examples, safety checks, and validation

### High Priority
4. **Archive deprecated prompts** → Clean up OLD.* files
5. **Complete `doc-lint.prompt.md`** → Finish truncated output section
6. **Standardize `session-status.prompt.md`** → Quantify drift detection

### Medium Priority
7. **Converge `md2html` prompts** → Single parameterized version
8. **Complete draft prompts** → Follow `service-new.prompt.md` pattern

### Low Priority
9. **Update README.md** → Reflect actual prompt inventory
10. **Add testing framework** → Validate prompts before deployment

---

## 8. Conclusion

The prompt repository has strong foundational patterns (gated workflows, RAG integration, safety guardrails) but suffers from:
- **Duplication:** 60% code overlap in service management prompts
- **Inconsistency:** 3 quality tiers with 9 incomplete drafts
- **Maintenance Burden:** 26 prompts to update when patterns evolve

**Recommended Strategy:** Phased convergence using meta-prompt architecture, starting with service management workflows (highest ROI). This reduces maintenance burden while preserving flexibility for specialized workflows.

**Estimated Effort:**
- Phase 1 (Cleanup): 2-4 hours
- Phase 2 (High-Impact): 8-12 hours
- Phase 3 (Convergence): 16-20 hours
- Phase 4 (Draft Completion): 12-16 hours
- **Total:** 38-52 hours over 6 weeks

---

**Report Generated:** 2026-01-09  
**Methodology:** Static analysis + pattern detection + quality scoring  
**Scope:** 26 prompt files in `.github/prompts/`  
**Next Review:** 2026-02-09 (post-Phase 2 completion)