Contribution & Review Workflow

A prompt library that only the original author can contribute to is a bottleneck. A prompt library that anyone can contribute to without review is a quality disaster. The contribution workflow balances open contribution with quality control.

The workflow: anyone can submit a prompt by filling out the standard template. A designated reviewer (the library owner or a rotating reviewer) checks the submission against the engineering standards: does it have explicit context requirements, input placeholders, output specifications, success criteria, and known limitations? Does it duplicate an existing prompt? Has it been tested with three inputs? If it passes, it is published. If it fails, the reviewer sends it back with specific feedback. The review should take 15 minutes per prompt. If it takes longer, the submission did not follow the template.

1. 1. Submit via Template Contributors fill out the standard prompt template with all required fields. Submissions that are missing required fields are returned without review — the template is the minimum bar.
2. 2. Review Against Standards The reviewer checks: context requirements specified, input placeholders documented, output format defined, tested with 3+ inputs, no duplication with existing prompts. Pass/fail with specific feedback.
3. 3. Publish and Announce Accepted prompts are added to the library with the contributor credited as author. Announce new additions in the team channel so people discover and use them.