
Agentica Prompts
- 461 installs
- 3.9k repo stars
- Updated January 26, 2026
- parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
agentica-prompts is an agent skill that teaches reliable prompt patterns for Agentica and REPL agents, reducing instruction ambiguity that causes roughly 35% of standard natural-language prompt failures.
About
agentica-prompts is a Claude Code skill from parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 for writing prompts that Agentica agents follow consistently instead of drifting on ambiguous instructions. The skill documents an orchestration pattern—research to .claude/cache/agents/research/, plan via RP-CLI to plan/, validate against best practices, then implement with TDD—that preserves context across steps. It cites that standard natural language prompts fail about 35% of the time due to LLM instruction ambiguity. Developers reach for agentica-prompts when orchestrating multi-agent coding workflows, hardening Agentica REPL harness prompts, or cutting hallucinations during research-plan-implement cycles.
- Curated library of specialized system prompts optimized for continuous Claude usage
- Includes agentic reasoning templates, chain-of-verification patterns, and self-critique instructions
- Designed specifically for long-running agent sessions and multi-step workflows
- Reduces predictable AI slop and improves output reliability without manual prompt engineering
- Battle-tested prompt collection with 430+ installs
Agentica Prompts by the numbers
- 461 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- +2 installs in the week ending Aug 4, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
- Ranked #1,870 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 --skill agentica-promptsAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 461 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 3.9k |
| Last updated | January 26, 2026 |
| Repository | parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 ↗ |
How do you write reliable Agentica agent prompts?
Give Claude consistent high-performance prompting patterns that dramatically reduce hallucinations and improve reasoning quality across any coding or planning task.
Who is it for?
Developers orchestrating Agentica or REPL agents who need repeatable research-plan-implement prompts with lower ambiguity failure rates.
Skip if: Single-shot chat prompts without multi-step agent orchestration should skip agentica-prompts.
When should I use this skill?
An Agentica or REPL agent ignores instructions, hallucinates, or needs a research-plan-validate-implement orchestration template.
What you get
Orchestration prompt templates, staged cache outputs, validation checkpoints, and TDD-first implementation prompts
- Orchestration prompt templates
- Staged agent cache outputs
By the numbers
- Cites ~35% failure rate for standard natural language prompts due to instruction ambiguity
- Defines a 4-step orchestration flow: research, plan, validate, implement
Files
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 assumeKey: 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 precisePattern-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.mdHierarchical (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} pairsGenerator/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.jsonGenerator/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.jsonJury (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_inputAnti-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%
Related skills
How it compares
Use agentica-prompts over generic prompt tips when prompts must drive staged Agentica REPL workflows with cache handoffs.
FAQ
Why does agentica-prompts cite a 35% failure rate?
agentica-prompts notes standard natural language prompts fail about 35% of the time due to LLM instruction ambiguity. The skill replaces vague phrasing with orchestration patterns Agentica agents follow more reliably.
What workflow does agentica-prompts recommend?
agentica-prompts recommends research output to cache, RP-CLI planning, validation against best practices, then TDD implementation. Staged .claude/cache/agents/ paths preserve context between agent steps.