Daniel Scott-Raynsford e1c7c7a50e

* Add prompts for .NET best practices, design pattern review, and GitHub Copilot suggestions

- Introduced a comprehensive prompt for ensuring .NET/C# code adheres to best practices, covering documentation, design patterns, dependency injection, resource management, async patterns, testing standards, configuration, AI integration, error handling, performance, security, and code quality.
- Added a prompt for reviewing C#/.NET code for design pattern implementation, providing a checklist for required patterns, architecture, best practices, SOLID principles, performance, maintainability, testability, security, documentation, code clarity, and clean code.
- Created prompts for suggesting relevant GitHub Copilot chatmodes and prompts based on the current repository context, including a structured process for fetching available chatmodes/prompts, scanning local files, and presenting options with rationale.
- Developed a prompt for updating Azure Verified Modules (AVM) in Bicep files, detailing the process for scanning, checking for updates, validating, and handling breaking changes.
- Implemented a prompt for updating implementation plans with new requirements, ensuring machine-readable output and adherence to a strict template.
- Added a prompt for updating the llms.txt file to reflect changes in documentation or specifications, focusing on compliance with the llmstxt specification.
- Created a prompt for updating markdown file indices with files from specified folders, including options for table structures and update strategies.
- Developed a prompt for updating object-oriented component documentation, following industry best practices and ensuring alignment with current implementations.
- Added a prompt for updating specification files, emphasizing clarity, structure, and compliance with established documentation standards.

* CHANGE: Update implementation plan prompt formatting

- Renamed prompt title for clarity.
- Added spacing for improved readability.
- Enhanced structure to ensure compliance with template validation rules.

* CHANGE: Fix typo in .NET best practices prompt

- Corrected "soltion" to "solution" in the prompt description.

2025-07-07 16:17:09 +10:00

4.4 KiB

Raw Blame History

mode

description

tools

agent

Suggest relevant GitHub Copilot prompt files from the awesome-copilot repository based on current repository context and chat history, avoiding duplicates with existing prompts in this repository.

changes

codebase

editFiles

fetch

findTestFiles

githubRepo

new

openSimpleBrowser

problems

runCommands

runTasks

runTests

searchResults

terminalLastCommand

terminalSelection

testFailure

usages

vscodeAPI

github

Suggest Awesome GitHub Copilot Prompts

Analyze current repository context and suggest relevant prompt files from the GitHub awesome-copilot repository that are not already available in this repository.

Process

Fetch Available Prompts: Extract prompt list and descriptions from awesome-copilot README
Scan Local Prompts: Discover existing prompt files in .github/prompts/ folder
Extract Descriptions: Read front matter from local prompt files to get descriptions
Analyze Context: Review chat history, repository files, and current project needs
Compare Existing: Check against prompts already available in this repository
Match Relevance: Compare available prompts against identified patterns and requirements
Present Options: Display relevant prompts with descriptions, rationale, and availability status
Validate: Ensure suggested prompts would add value not already covered by existing prompts
Output: Provide structured table with suggestions, descriptions, and links to both awesome-copilot prompts and similar local prompts
Next Steps: If any suggestions are made, provide instructions that GitHub Copilot will be able to follow to add the suggested prompts to the repository by downloading the file into the prompts directory. Offer to do this automatically if the user confirms.

Context Analysis Criteria

🔍 Repository Patterns:

Programming languages used (.cs, .js, .py, etc.)
Framework indicators (ASP.NET, React, Azure, etc.)
Project types (web apps, APIs, libraries, tools)
Documentation needs (README, specs, ADRs)

🗨️ Chat History Context:

Recent discussions and pain points
Feature requests or implementation needs
Code review patterns
Development workflow requirements

Output Format

Display analysis results in structured table comparing awesome-copilot prompts with existing repository prompts:

Awesome-Copilot Prompt	Description	Already Installed	Similar Local Prompt	Suggestion Rationale
code-review.md	Automated code review prompts	❌ No	None	Would enhance development workflow with standardized code review processes
documentation.md	Generate project documentation	✅ Yes	create_oo_component_documentation.prompt.md	Already covered by existing documentation prompts
debugging.md	Debug assistance prompts	❌ No	None	Could improve troubleshooting efficiency for development team

Local Prompts Discovery Process

List all *.prompt.md files directory .github/prompts/.
For each discovered file, read front matter to extract description
Build comprehensive inventory of existing prompts
Use this inventory to avoid suggesting duplicates

Requirements

Use githubRepo tool to get content from awesome-copilot repository
Scan local file system for existing prompts in .github/prompts/ directory
Read YAML front matter from local prompt files to extract descriptions
Compare against existing prompts in this repository to avoid duplicates
Focus on gaps in current prompt library coverage
Validate that suggested prompts align with repository's purpose and standards
Provide clear rationale for each suggestion
Include links to both awesome-copilot prompts and similar local prompts
Don't provide any additional information or context beyond the table and the analysis

Icons Reference

✅ Already installed in repo
❌ Not installed in repo

4.4 KiB Raw Blame History