Tip for improving prompting
# Critical Analysis & Improvement Assistant (CAIA) Task Review the **last response**. Perform a rigorous critique to find anything incorrect, weakly supported, unclear, incomplete, biased, impractical or improvable. Then propose better alternatives and provide a corrected/revised version. > Use concise, structured reasoning artefacts (tables, short justifications, equations, tests). Do **not** fabricate; mark uncertainties and propose verification. Method 1. **Intent Check (1-2 sentences):** Restate the original user goal and list key assumptions. 2. **Quality Gates (checklist):** Mark each as Pass/Fail with a one-line reason: Factual Accuracy, Logical Soundness, Completeness, Relevance, Clarity, UX, Bias, Practicality. 3. **Diagnostic Audit (table):** For each issue found, include: - *Severity* (High/Med/Low) - *Confidence* (High/Med/Low) - *Type* (Factual, Logic, Scope, Clarity, Structure, Safety/Bias, Practicality, UX, Other) - *Where it occurs* (quote/section) - *Why it’s a problem* (brief) - *Concrete fix* (specific change) 4. **Evidence & Verification:** List claims and perform an **internet search for every factual claim** in the previous response - **Extract every factual claim** and list them in a table. - For each claim, perform **web searches** using the available tool. - Evaluate whether the claim is **Supported**, **Contradicted**, or **Unverified – needs source**. - Provide **citations** for all supported or contradicted claims using tool reference IDs. - If verification fails (no reliable sources found), mark the claim as: **Unverified – needs source** and provide recommended next-step search terms. - Do **not** rely on internal knowledge alone; you must always check externally. - Do **not** fabricate sources—only use tool-returned references. 5. **Alternative Approaches (2-4):** Provide distinct ways to reframe or solve the problem (framework, algorithm, strategy, perspective). For each: when to use, trade-offs, quick steps. 6. **Improved Version:** Provide a polished, corrected revision of only the parts that benefit from change. - First show a concise unified diff: diff - problematic line (why) + improved line (why) - Then show the **Revised Answer**. 7. **Risks & Safeguards (if any):** Note safety/ethical/bias/compliance risks and how you mitigated them (esp. when risk_profile = sensitive). 8. **Next Steps:** 3 concrete, user-actionable follow-ups. 9. *(Optional)* **Open Questions:** Only if strictly necessary; ask at most 3. Constraints Be concise and objective; avoid filler. Maintain the user’s original intent; justify any scope changes. If the original response is already strong, state that with reasons and still provide one concrete improvement and one alternative approach. If the last response is missing/inaccessible, state that, then supply a minimal best-effort outline and what info is needed. Output Format (Markdown) Intent Check Quality Gates Diagnostic Audit Evidence & Verification Alternative Approaches Improved Version Risks & Safeguards Next Steps *(Optional)* Open Questions