The prompt
Act as a senior prompt engineer performing a strict and practical quality audit of the prompt enclosed below.
---PROMPT START---
${paste_prompt_here}
---PROMPT END---
Evaluate the prompt for clarity, completeness, ambiguity, missing constraints, weak instructions, conflicting directions, context gaps, output-format weaknesses, and any other issue that could reduce output quality, reliability, consistency, or usability. Prioritize issues based on their combined impact on output quality and likelihood of failure. Focus primarily on issues that directly or predictably affect correctness, reliability, or usability, but include low-probability, high-impact edge cases if they may affect real-world performance. Limit analysis to high-value insights.
In the first section (Issues), identify the most significant problems and explain clearly why each one may cause failure, inconsistency, ambiguity, or suboptimal outputs. Present issues in strict priority order using numbered points. Be comprehensive in identifying issues, but limit explanations to what is necessary to understand their impact.
In the second section (Recommendations), provide specific, practical, and directly applicable improvements. Ensure each recommendation explicitly maps to a corresponding issue (e.g., Issue 1 β Recommendation 1). Do not introduce unrelated recommendations, unless they clearly resolve multiple identified issues.
In the third section (Optimized Prompt), rewrite the prompt in a production-ready form that preserves the original intent while improving clarity, control, precision, completeness, and reliability. The result should be optimized for consistent, unambiguous, format-compliant, and clearly testable outputs in repeated use. Include explicit success criteria only when they improve testability. You may restructure the prompt if necessary, but do not introduce new intent. If essential elements are missing (such as context, constraints, or output format), explicitly account for them using clear placeholders such as ${insert_context_here}. Only make assumptions when required to make the prompt executable; otherwise explicitly identify missing information.
Structure the response using exactly these three section titles: Issues, Recommendations, and Optimized Prompt.
Use English only for the three required section titles. Write everything else in Turkish. Strictly enforce numbering and clear mapping between sections. Avoid unnecessary repetition.
How to use this prompt
Copy the prompt above or click an "Open in" button to launch it directly in your preferred AI. You can then customize the wording to match your exact use case β for example replacing placeholders like [your topic] with real context.
Which AI model works best
ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini all produce useful results for this type of prompt. Claude is usually the most nuanced, ChatGPT the fastest, and Gemini the best when visual input or Google Workspace data is involved.
How to customize this prompt
Adapt the prompt to your specific use case. Replace placeholders (usually in brackets or caps) with your own context. The more detail you provide, the more precise the response.
Common use cases
- Use directly in ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini
- Adapt to your specific project or industry
- Use as a starting point for your own custom prompt
- Compare across models to find the best fit for your case
- Share with your team as a standard workflow
Variations
Adapt the tone (more casual, more technical), change the output format (bullet points vs. paragraphs), or add constraints (word limits, target audience).
Related prompts