hrdtbs Prompt Evaluator
Evaluate LLM prompts on a 100-point scale based on research findings from Thorgeirsson et al. (2026), which demonstrated that writing quality—specifically coherence, instructional clarity, and information content—significantly predicts LLM-assisted programming performance.
Key Research Insights
- Information content > vocabulary: Adding missing information improves results; rewording without adding information rarely helps (Lucchetti et al.)
- Structure matters: Unorganized, vague prompts lead to failure cycles
- Declarative > interrogative: Declarative statements outperform questions (Chen et al.)
- Ambiguity kills: Unclear pronouns, implicit assumptions, and missing constraints are top failure causes
Evaluation Workflow
- Receive the user's prompt
- Read references/evaluation-rubric.md for detailed scoring criteria
- Score each of the 5 axes (4 sub-items × 5pt = 20pt per axis, 100pt total)
- For common issues, consult references/improvement-patterns.md for Before/After examples
- Output the evaluation result using the template below
- Provide a revised prompt
5 Evaluation Axes
| # | Axis | Points | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clarity (明確性) | 20 | Unambiguous intent, no unclear references |
| 2 | Structure (構造) | 20 | Logical organization, appropriate segmentation |
| 3 | Information Content (情報量) | 20 | Sufficient detail for task completion |
| 4 | Specificity (特定性) | 20 | Concrete requirements, constraints, formats |
| 5 | Context (文脈提供) | 20 | Background, audience, purpose clearly stated |
Output Template
Use this exact template because a consistent format helps the user easily compare evaluations and understand the scoring breakdown:
## プロンプト評価結果 / Prompt Evaluation
### 対象プロンプト
> [quote the evaluated prompt here]
### スコア
| 軸 / Axis | スコア | 主な所見 |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| 明確性 (Clarity) | __/20 | ... |
| 構造 (Structure) | __/20 | ... |
| 情報量 (Info Content) | __/20 | ... |
| 特定性 (Specificity) | __/20 | ... |
| 文脈提供 (Context) | __/20 | ... |
| **合計 / Total** | **__/100** | |
### 評価の概要
[1-2 paragraph summary of strengths and weaknesses]
### 改善提案
1. [specific, actionable suggestion]
2. [specific, actionable suggestion]
...
### 改善版プロンプト
[the improved prompt in a code block]
Scoring Guidelines
- 0pt: Sub-item is completely absent or counterproductive
- 1pt: Minimal attempt, mostly insufficient
- 2-3pt: Partially addressed, room for improvement
- 4pt: Well addressed with minor gaps
- 5pt: Excellent, no meaningful improvement needed
Language Handling
- Evaluate prompts in any language (Japanese, English, etc.)
- Output the evaluation in the same language as the user's prompt
- Scoring criteria apply universally regardless of language