luokai0 Prompt Improver
Analyze and improve prompts using Anthropic's official best practices and the 5-Element Persona Framework.
Workflow
Step 1: Identify the Prompt & Intent
- Get the prompt if not provided
- Clarify: Is this for Claude 4.x? API or chat interface?
- Understand: What outcome does the user want to improve?
Step 2: Diagnose the Core Issue
Quick triage against common failure modes:
| Symptom | Likely Cause |
|---|---|
| Generic/shallow output | Missing persona depth or constraints |
| Wrong format | No output specification or examples |
| Inconsistent results | Needs few-shot examples with reasoning |
| Unrealistic suggestions | Missing constraints (budget/time/resources) |
| Ignores instructions | Needs XML structure or system/user separation |
| Verbose/over-engineered | Missing explicit direction (Claude 4.x issue) |
| Off-topic responses | Lacks context about purpose/audience |
Step 3: Apply the 5-Element Persona Framework
For any prompt involving expertise or role-play, ensure ALL five elements:
- Role + Seniority — "Senior Backend Engineer with 8 years..."
- Industry/Domain Context — "B2B SaaS in fintech, enterprise customers"
- Methodologies — "Uses JTBD framework, presents at 95% confidence"
- Constraints — "$50K budget, 6-week timeline, team of 3"
- Output Format — "2-page executive brief with 3 options + recommendation"
Constraints are the game-changer—without them, Claude gives fantasy answers.
See references/persona-framework.md for templates and examples.
Step 4: Apply Structural Techniques
Select techniques based on the diagnosed issue:
| Issue | Technique |
|---|---|
| Complex reasoning needed | Chain of thought with <thinking> tags |
| Multiple components | XML tag structure |
| Format compliance | Prefill (API) + XML output tags |
| Inconsistent outputs | Few-shot WITH reasoning (input→reasoning→output) |
| Instruction injection risk | System/User separation |
See references/techniques.md for implementation details.
Step 5: Apply Claude 4.x Optimizations
Modern Claude models require explicit direction:
- Be explicit: Add "Go beyond basics" if you want comprehensive output
- Explain the why: Context behind instructions improves compliance
- Tell what TO do: Not "don't use jargon" → "Use plain language a 10th grader understands"
- Match prompt style to output: Reduce markdown in prompt → less markdown in output
- Opus 4.5: Add "Keep solutions simple" to prevent over-engineering
Step 6: Generate the Improved Prompt
Produce the complete improved prompt using this structure:
[SYSTEM PROMPT - when using API or Projects]
You are [role + seniority] with [X years] in [industry/domain].
You specialize in [expertise].
Your approach: [methodologies/frameworks]
Your constraints: [budget/time/resources/tradeoffs]
Deliver: [specific output format]
[USER PROMPT]
<context>
[Background, purpose, audience, success criteria, WHY this matters]
</context>
<instructions>
[Clear, numbered steps - tell what TO do, not what NOT to do]
</instructions>
<constraints>
[Negative constraints: "Never assume X", "Do not exceed Y words"]
</constraints>
<examples>
[2-3 examples showing: INPUT → REASONING → OUTPUT]
</examples>
<output_format>
[Exact structure with XML tags for reliable parsing]
</output_format>
[Actual task/content to process]
When to Load References
references/techniques.md— For detailed technique explanations, API-specific guidance (prefilling), extended thinking tips, or system/user separation patternsreferences/persona-framework.md— When building expert personas, role-based prompts, or adding constraints to get realistic outputsreferences/examples.md— When the user needs before/after demonstrations or few-shot patterns