Plsfix

plsfix

Overview

Improve spec and instruction documents by applying the 12 principles that make both human and AI communication effective. Produces a rewritten document plus a change report mapping each edit to the principle it implements.

Core insight: The same writing principles that make humans respond better also make AI respond better, because LLMs learned from human text. These principles aren't prompt tricks: they're the fundamentals of effective written communication.

Sources: These principles are synthesized from official prompt engineering guidance published by Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and Microsoft.

When to Use

• Spec or requirements document feels vague or produces bad results
• Instructions to a team or AI keep getting misinterpreted
• Prompt or brief generates generic, off-target output
• Document has grown organically and lost coherence
• User says "fix this", "improve this", "make this clearer" about an instruction document

The 12 Principles

Principles are ordered by application sequence: structure the document first, then sharpen content, then refine delivery.

Phase 1: Structure (get the bones right)

Phase 2: Content (sharpen what you're saying)

Phase 3: Delivery (refine how you're saying it)

Workflow

digraph plsfix {
    rankdir=TB;
    "Read document" -> "Identify principle violations";
    "Identify principle violations" -> "Rewrite document";
    "Rewrite document" -> "Generate change report";
    "Generate change report" -> "Present both to user";
}

Step 1: Read and Diagnose

Read the full document. For each section or paragraph, check against all 12 principles in order: Structure (P1-P4), then Content (P5-P8), then Delivery (P9-P12). Note every violation with its location and the principle it violates.

Step 2: Rewrite

Apply fixes to produce a clean, improved version of the document. Preserve the author's intent, voice, and structure where possible. Make the minimum changes needed to satisfy each principle.

Rewriting rules:

• Do not add content the author didn't intend (no scope creep)
• Do not remove content unless it directly contradicts a principle (e.g., removing a "don't" to replace with a positive directive)
• When adding specificity (P5), mark any assumed details with [CONFIRM: assumed detail] so the author can verify
• When adding examples (P8), draw them from context in the document itself; if no context exists, mark with [EXAMPLE NEEDED: describe what kind]
• When adding structural markup (P4), prefer the delimiter style already used in the document; if none exists, use markdown headers for human-facing docs and XML tags for AI-facing prompts
• When adding an output contract (P7), derive format and constraints from what the document already implies; mark assumptions with [CONFIRM]
• Preserve original section headings unless renaming is required to fix P2 (one ask per section)

Step 3: Generate Change Report

Produce a markdown table summarizing every change:

## plsfix Change Report

| # | Location | Principle | Before (summary) | After (summary) | Rationale |
|---|----------|-----------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------|
| 1 | Section 2, para 1 | P5: Be specific | "Build a good dashboard" | "Build a Grafana dashboard showing p95 latency, error rate, and throughput for the payments service" | Original lacked target tool, metrics, and scope |
| 2 | Section 3 | P9: Say what to do | "Don't use jargon" | "Use plain language a non-technical stakeholder would understand" | Negative instruction replaced with positive directive |
| 3 | Section 1 | P4: Use structural markup | Instructions, context, and examples mixed in a single block | Separated with `### Instructions`, `### Context`, and `### Examples` headers | Reader couldn't distinguish instructions from reference material |

Report rules:

• One row per change (group tightly related changes on the same sentence)
• Always cite the principle by number and name
• "Before" and "After" should be short summaries or direct quotes, not full paragraphs
• "Rationale" explains why this change improves the document in one sentence
• If no violations are found for a principle, do not include a "no changes" row; omit silently
• End the report with a Principles Not Triggered line listing any of P1-P12 that required no changes (confirms you checked)

Step 4: Present

Show the user:

1. The change report (so they can review what changed and why)
2. The rewritten document (full text, ready to use)

Ask: "Any of the [CONFIRM] items to adjust, or changes you'd like to revert?"

Quick Reference: Diagnosis Patterns

Common Mistakes

• Over-specifying: Adding so much detail that the document becomes brittle and can't adapt to context. Fix: use [CONFIRM] tags for assumptions rather than asserting details you don't know.
• Rewriting voice: Stripping the author's tone and replacing it with generic "spec language." Fix: match the original register; if it was casual, keep it casual but clearer.
• Inventing scope: Adding requirements the author never mentioned because "they should have." Fix: only add specificity that clarifies existing intent, never new intent.
• Principle-stuffing: Forcing every principle into every section even when the original was fine. Fix: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Report only actual violations.
• Over-structuring: Adding XML tags and delimiters to a simple, short document that was already clear. Fix: structural markup (P4) helps most when the document is long or mixes multiple content types. A three-sentence instruction doesn't need headers.