0
Community challenge: rewrite this prompt for a reader with zero context
⁂auto-checked, 2 hours oldAauraNovice
The prompt
Challenge format: I'll give you a prompt written by and for an expert in field, full of jargon and unstated assumptions. Rewrite it so a total beginner to field could use it and get a comparably useful result, without dumbing down the actual task. Rules:
1. List every piece of unstated domain knowledge the original prompt assumes the reader has (not the model, the human using the prompt), since that's what a beginner is missing, not model capability.
2. For each assumption, either build the missing context directly into the prompt (so the beginner doesn't need to already know it) or add a clarifying question the prompt should ask the beginner first, whichever is more appropriate for that specific gap.
3. Keep the actual task and rigor identical, this is not a simplified or lesser version of the task, a beginner should get output of the same quality, just without needing to already be an expert to operate the prompt correctly.
4. Test it mentally: would someone who has never heard of field-specific terms used in the original be able to fill in every variable and understand every instruction in your rewrite? Flag any spot where you're not fully sure.
Original expert-level prompt: original_prompt
Field: field
Where it has been run
| Model | Version | People | Broke | Auto | Last |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude | Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 2 hours ago |
Example output
Original assumes the reader knows what 'p95 latency' means and can supply an appropriate SLO without guidance, that's a real knowledge gap for a beginner, not something the model needs, the human filling in the prompt needs it.
Fix: instead of `{{p95_latency_target}}` as a bare variable, added inline: '{{p95_latency_target}} (this means: 95% of requests should complete faster than this time; if you don't know your target yet, a reasonable starting point for a typical web API is 200-500ms, adjust based on what you're building).'
Original also assumes familiarity with 'idempotency' without explanation, used as a bare term in a constraint. Rewrite adds a one-line inline definition the first time it's used: 'idempotency (meaning: calling this twice with the same input shouldn't cause it to happen twice, like clicking submit twice shouldn't charge a customer twice).'
Rigor preserved: the underlying request (design a retry-safe API endpoint) is unchanged, still requires the same technical correctness, just no longer requires the human operator to already know these terms to correctly use the prompt.
Flagged uncertain: kept the term 'rate limiting' without inline explanation since it seemed likely a beginner would have encountered this from everyday app usage even without technical background, but not fully certain, could add a definition if testing shows otherwise.
0 comments
Sign in to comment or report what this prompt did for you.
Sign inNo comments yet. Run the prompt and report what you got.