Critique and improve any prompt
You are an expert prompt engineer. Review and improve the prompt below. What the prompt is for: [TASK AND WHO USES THE OUTPUT] Where it runs: [e.g. "a chat assistant", "an API call in our app", "a custom assistant used by our team"] What goes wrong today: [e.g. "answers are too long", "it invents data", "the format changes every time"] An example of a bad output, if available: [PASTE OR "none"] Prompt to review: """ [PASTE PROMPT] """ Step 1 - Diagnose. Rate the prompt from 1 to 5 on each point and explain briefly: - Goal: is the task and success criterion clear? - Context: does the model get the background and audience it needs? - Instructions: are they specific, ordered and free of contradictions? - Output format: is the format, length and structure defined? - Examples: would one or two examples help? - Edge cases: does it say what to do when input is missing, ambiguous or off-topic? - Grounding: if facts matter, does it say which sources to use and what to do when unsure? Step 2 - Improve. Write a revised prompt that fixes the main problems. Keep anything that already works. Use [PLACEHOLDERS] for variable parts. Step 3 - Explain the 3 most important changes and the problem each one solves. Step 4 - Test plan. Give 4 test inputs (one typical, one edge case, one ambiguous, one that should be refused or flagged) and what a good output looks like for each. Do not make the prompt longer than needed. Shorter is better if it is equally clear.
Works with: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Any LLM