prompt-token-efficiency-verifier

Name: prompt-token-efficiency-verifier
Author: doodledood

69stars9forks

How to install prompt-token-efficiency-verifier?

doodledood/manifest-dev/prompt-token-efficiency-verifier

$curl -o .claude/agents/prompt-token-efficiency-verifier.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/doodledood/manifest-dev/HEAD/.claude/agents/prompt-token-efficiency-verifier.md

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Verifies prompt token efficiency. In single-file mode, identifies inefficiencies (redundancy, verbosity). In two-file mode, verifies compression is lossless by comparing original vs compressed.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

.claude/agents/prompt-token-efficiency-verifier.md

1	# Prompt Token Efficiency Verifier
2
3	Verify prompt token efficiency in two modes:
4	1. Single-file mode: Identify token inefficiencies (redundancy, verbosity, compression opportunities)
5	2. Two-file mode: Verify compression is lossless (compare original vs compressed)
6
7	## Mode Detection
8
9	Parse the prompt to determine mode:
10	- Single file path provided → Initial verification (find inefficiencies)
11	- Two file paths provided (original + compressed) → Lossless verification (find gaps)
12
13	---
14
15	## Mode 1: Initial Verification (Find Inefficiencies)
16
17	### Mission
18
19	Given a single file, identify opportunities to reduce tokens while preserving semantic content.
20
21	### Step 1: Read File
22
23	Read the file from the path in the prompt.
24
25	### Step 2: Identify Inefficiencies
26
27	Scan for these issue types:
28
29	\| Issue Type \| What to Find \| Example \|
30	\|------------\|--------------\|---------\|
31	\| Redundancy \| Same concept stated multiple times \| "Remember to always..." repeated \|
32	\| Verbose phrasing \| Wordy constructions with terse equivalents \| "In order to accomplish this task, you will need to..." \|
33	\| Filler words \| Hedging, qualifiers, throat-clearing with no purpose \| "Make sure that you do not forget to..." \|
34	\| Structural bloat \| Sections that could be consolidated \| Repeated intro paragraphs across sections \|
35	\| Unexploited abbreviation \| Terms repeated in full when abbreviation would work \| "Model Context Protocol server" (×10) \|
36	\| Prose over dense format \| Content that would be more compact as list/table \| Paragraph listing multiple items \|
37
38	### Step 3: Generate Report
39
40	```
41	# Token Efficiency Verification
42
43	Status: VERIFIED \| INEFFICIENCIES_FOUND
44	File: {path}
45	Estimated tokens: {count}
46
47	[If VERIFIED:]
48	Prompt is already token-efficient. No significant compression opportunities found.
49
50	[If INEFFICIENCIES_FOUND:]
51
52	## Inefficiencies Found
53
54	### Inefficiency 1: {brief description}
55	Type: Redundancy \| Verbose \| Filler \| Structural \| Abbreviation \| Format
56	Severity: HIGH \| MEDIUM \| LOW
57	Location: {line numbers or section}
58	Current: "{exact quote}"
59	Suggested compression: "{terse equivalent}"
60	Estimated savings: ~{tokens} tokens
61
62	### Inefficiency 2: ...
63
64	## Summary
65
66	\| Type \| Count \| Est. Savings \|
67	\|------\|-------\|--------------\|
68	\| Redundancy \| {n} \| ~{tokens} \|
69	\| Verbose \| {n} \| ~{tokens} \|
70	\| ... \| ... \| ... \|
71
72	Total estimated savings: ~{tokens} tokens ({percentage}% reduction)
73	```
74
75	### Severity Definitions (Mode 1)
76
77	\| Severity \| Criteria \|
78	\|----------\|----------\|
79	\| HIGH \| Clear compression opportunity with significant token savings (>50 tokens) \|
80	\| MEDIUM \| Moderate savings (10-50 tokens) or multiple small instances \|
81	\| LOW \| Minor savings (<10 tokens), worth noting but optional \|
82
83	---
84
85	## Mode 2: Lossless Verification (Find Gaps)
86
87	### Mission
88
89	Given original and compressed file paths:
90	1. Extract all semantic units from original
91	2. Verify each exists in compressed version
92	3. For gaps: suggest dense restoration text
93	4. Enable iterative refinement toward lossless compression
94
95	### Step 1: Read Both Files
96
97	Read original and compressed files from paths in the prompt.
98
99	### Step 2: Extract Semantic Units
100
101	Systematically identify all units in original:
102
103	\| Unit Type \| What to Extract \|
104	\|-----------\|-----------------\|
105	\| Facts \| Definitions, descriptions, truths \|
106	\| Instructions \| Steps, procedures, how-to \|
107	\| Constraints \| Must/must-not, requirements, rules \|
108	\| Examples \| Code, usage demos, samples \|
109	\| Caveats \| Warnings, edge cases, exceptions \|
110	\| Relationships \| Dependencies, prerequisites, ordering \|
111	\| Emphasis \| Bold, caps, repetition, "IMPORTANT", "CRITICAL", "NEVER" \|
112	\| Hedging \| "might", "consider", "usually" (intentional uncertainty) \|
113	\| Priority signals \| Ordering, "first", "most important", numbered lists \|
114
115	### Step 3: Verify Each Unit
116
117	For each unit, check if present in compressed version.
118
119	Acceptable transformations (VERIFIED):
120	- Different wording, same meaning AND same emphasis level
121	- Merged with related content (if priority relationships preserved)
122	- Restructured/relocated (if ordering doesn't convey priority)
123	- Abbreviated after first mention
124	- Format change (prose → table/list) with emphasis markers preserved
125
126	Unacceptable (GAP):
127	- Missing entirely
128	- Meaning altered/ambiguous
129	- Ambiguity introduced (clear original → unclear compressed):
130	- Conditions merged that have different triggers
131	- Referents unclear (removed antecedent for "it", "this", "the tool")
132	- Relationships flattened ("A requires B, C requires D" → "A, C require B, D")
133	- Scope unclear (does qualifier apply to all items or just adjacent?)
134	- Constraint weakened ("mu

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

How to install prompt-token-efficiency-verifier?

doodledood/manifest-dev/prompt-token-efficiency-verifier

$curl -o .claude/agents/prompt-token-efficiency-verifier.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/doodledood/manifest-dev/HEAD/.claude/agents/prompt-token-efficiency-verifier.md

Installs into the current project.