system-prompts-and-models-of-ai-tools has 32 vendor folders and no versions

The description names Claude Code, the tree has Anthropic

The repository description enumerates vendors, and the top level of the tree holds 32 vendor directories, but the two lists do not line up. The description says Claude Code and the tree has Anthropic/ with no Claude Code directory at all. The same kind of drift runs through the rest: Comet becomes Comet Assistant/, CodeBuddy becomes CodeBuddy Prompts/, Manus becomes a directory named Manus Agent Tools & Prompt/, NotionAI becomes NotionAi/, and v0 becomes v0 Prompts and Tools/. Four directories have no counterpart name in the description at all, which are Amp/, Emergent/, Google/, and Open Source prompts/. Consequence for a reader: the description is not a usable table of contents, and anything you script or link from those names breaks, because the folder that holds Claude Code is called after the company and the folder for v0 carries a suffix. Several directory names also contain spaces and trailing slashes, so a shell command over the tree needs quoting.

No code, no releases, and no product version behind any entry

The repository declares no primary language because there is no source code, and it has no GitHub releases. What the product side means is that an entry has no attached version. A system prompt is a snapshot of one build of one product, and the products in question ship continuously, but nothing in this repository records which build an entry came from. The only freshness signal inside the readme is a single line, Latest Update: 12/07/2026, and that format is locale dependent, so it reads as 12 July or 7 December depending on where you are. The last push to main is dated 11 August 2026, which is later than that line under either reading. Consequence for a reader: you cannot use this collection to reason about how a product behaves now, and you cannot tell a stale prompt from a current one except by cross-checking outside the repository. Anyone building an evaluation set from it is measuring a moment nobody recorded.

One parenthetical is the entire provenance story

The description ends with a parenthetical, and other Open Sourced, before the words System Prompts, Internal Tools & AI Models. That single phrase is the only statement about where the material came from, and it concedes two different categories in one collection. The top level also includes a directory literally named Open Source prompts/, which implies the rest is something else. Consequence for a reader who intends to reuse an entry: nothing in the repository gives you a source URL, a capture date, a license per vendor, or any indication of whether a given file was read from public documentation or obtained some other way, so that determination is yours to make per file. The root LICENSE.md is GPL-3.0, a license written for software, and the readme does not say how it applies to quoted prompt text, which makes the license question as unresolved as the provenance question.

The security paragraph is an advertisement, and there is no SECURITY file

The readme opens with a heading about security for AI startups, and the warning under it says that if you are an AI startup you should make sure your data is secure because exposed prompts or AI models can easily become a target for hackers. The next block promotes ZeroLeaks, a service described as helping startups identify and secure prompt injection and system prompt extraction risks. That is the whole of it. There is no SECURITY.md in the top level listing, no disclosure process, no threat model, no guidance for anyone who finds a problem, and no discussion of the risk of redistributing this material. Consequence for a reader: the only security content in the repository is a pitch for a commercial product, so if your concern is your own prompt exposure, this repository gives you no mitigations to apply, and if your concern is handling what is collected here, it gives you no process. A collection whose stated value is vendor internals has the least written about its own handling.

Most of the 178-word readme is money

The readme is short, and a large share of it is funding. There are three cryptocurrency addresses, BTC as bc1q7zldmzjwspnaa48udvelwe6k3fef7xrrhg5625, LTC as LRWgqwEYDwqau1WeiTs6Mjg85NJ7m3fsdQ, and ETH as 0x3f844B2cc3c4b7242964373fB0A41C4fdffB192A, plus a Patreon link at patreon.com/lucknite and a Ko-fi link at ko-fi.com/lucknite. A separate sponsors block pitches sponsoring the most comprehensive repository of AI system prompts and reach thousands of developers, and closes with a mailto. The rest is four outbound badges at the top, one Discord handle, one X handle, one email address, the instruction to open an issue, the update date, and the line Drop a star if you find this useful. Consequence for a reader: there is no index, no table of contents, and no description of what is inside any folder, so the scope of the collection has to be discovered by browsing a directory listing.

Two superlatives with no coverage measurement behind them

The readme calls this the most comprehensive repository of AI system prompts, and the description opens with FULL before its list of vendors. Neither claim is supported by anything in the repository. There is no per-vendor index, no count of entries, no record of which products were attempted and abandoned, and no stated method for deciding that a vendor's prompt set is complete. The directory listing is the only evidence, and it cuts against the description rather than for it, since Amp/, Emergent/, Google/, and Open Source prompts/ are present on disk but absent from the enumeration, and four named vendors sit in folders under different names. Consequence for a reader: FULL and most comprehensive are marketing rather than measurement, so if completeness matters for your use, you have to audit the folders yourself and cannot infer coverage from the project's own framing.

The tree is flat, so coverage per vendor is unknowable from the listing

The top level is one directory per vendor with no intermediate structure, alongside .github/ and assets/. That layout makes the collection easy to clone and hard to assess. You cannot tell from the listing whether Cursor Prompts/ holds one file or thirty, whether Perplexity/ is a single prompt or a set of internal tool schemas, or whether two vendors overlap in what they cover. Diffing across vendors, which is the obvious reason to have them all in one place, means opening every folder because there is no shared index and no manifest describing what each entry is. Consequence for a reader: the value of the collection is comparative, and the layout gives you no help with the comparison, so the practical use is a single-vendor lookup rather than cross-vendor study, and a fork that wants a real index would have to build one.

Editorial conclusion

Treat system-prompts-and-models-of-ai-tools as a set of reference samples rather than a specification. It suits someone studying how a vendor framed an agent, and it does not suit anyone who needs to know what a shipping product does today, because there are no releases, no tags, no per-entry capture dates, and no index inside any vendor directory. Navigate by the directory listing rather than by the repository description, since Claude Code appears as Anthropic/ and four folders including Amp, Emergent, Google, and Open Source prompts have no matching name in the description. Before you quote or ship any entry, establish its provenance yourself: the description's own parenthetical admits the set mixes open-sourced material with material from products that are not open, and the README carries no per-vendor source. Read LICENSE.md yourself, since GPL-3.0 is written for software and the README says nothing about how it applies to quoted prompt text. The single security paragraph in the readme is a pitch for a commercial service, not a threat model.

Frequently asked questions

Official sources

1. Official README
2. Project repository