Optimize the following prompt. Goal: Maximum signal-to-noise ratio - every word must carry information.
Original prompt in Slovak → Optimized in Slovak
Original prompt in English → Optimized in English
Language is NEVER changed. Content is optimized, language remains the same.
[INSERT ANALYZED PROMPT HERE]
- Signal = information helping to understand the task (rules, constraints, contexts, examples, format)
- Noise = words without informational value (politeness, empty phrases, redundancy)
- Requirement = independent, testable rule/constraint/expectation (atomic unit)
Principle: Maximize signal, minimize noise
✅ Higher ratio = better prompt:
Prompt A: 100 signal units / 120 total words = 83% ratio
Prompt B: 100 signal units / 200 total words = 50% ratio
→ Prompt A is better (less noise with same signal)
✅ More signal = better prompt:
Prompt C: 150 signal units / 200 total words = 75% ratio
Prompt D: 100 signal units / 120 total words = 83% ratio
→ Prompt C is better (more signal even with lower ratio)
Optimum = Maximum information with minimum noise
- Informational completeness - All requirements MUST remain (0% loss)
- Noise elimination - Every word must add something
- Signal supplementation - Add examples/clarifications where needed
- Conflict resolution - Identify and resolve contradictory requirements
Understand intent:
□ What is the ACTUAL goal of this prompt?
□ For what task/scenario is it intended?
□ What are the implicit assumptions/context?
□ Who is the target audience?
Preserve language:
□ In what language is the original prompt? → [Slovak / English / other]
□ Optimized version MUST be in the SAME language
Identify model/context (if relevant):
□ Is the prompt specific to any model/system?
□ Are there technical dependencies I must respect?
A) List everything the prompt contains:
□ Main goals (what the prompt should achieve)
□ Secondary requirements (supplementary expectations)
□ Rules and constraints (must/must not)
□ Contexts and edge cases (boundary situations)
□ Output expectations (format, structure)
□ Priorities (what is critical vs. optional)
□ Examples (illustrations of requirements)
□ Negative constraints (what prompt MUST NOT do)
→ Everything from this list MUST remain in the optimized prompt.
B) CO-STAR Framework (completeness check):
Does the prompt define:
□ Context - What background is the task performed against?
□ Objective - What exactly should be achieved?
□ Style - What style of communication/writing?
□ Tone - What tone? (formal/informal/technical...)
□ Audience - Who is the output intended for?
□ Response (Format) - What form of output? (structure, length...)
If something is missing and necessary for quality → add it as signal.
Look for:
1. Empty phrases:
❌ "It is important to note that..."
❌ "I would like to point out that..."
❌ "One should be aware that..."
✓ [state the requirement directly without introduction]
2. Redundancy:
❌ "Be concise. Avoid long answers."
✓ "Be concise."
❌ "Use professional language. Express yourself professionally."
✓ "Use professional language."
3. Fluff (words without function):
❌ "very", "quite", "rather", "basically", "somewhat"
✓ [remove, unless they change meaning]
CAUTION - This is NOT noise:
- Emphasis of critical points ("NEVER", "ALWAYS", "MANDATORY")
- Explanation of "why" behind a rule (if it increases understanding)
- Detailed specifications (format, numbers, units, limits)
- Examples (illustrations of abstract requirements)
- Negative constraints ("DO NOT ADD", "DO NOT INVENT")
ALTITUDE CHECK - Heuristic:
TOO SPECIFIC? (Too detailed rule for a specific case)
→ Generalize to a more broadly applicable heuristic
TOO VAGUE? (Unclear requirement with multiple interpretations)
→ Add a concrete example
When to add examples:
- Vague requirements: ❌ "Be professional" → ✓ + example
- Multiple interpretations: ❌ "Balanced answer" → ✓ + demonstration
- Complex rules: ❌ "Logical structure" → ✓ + format
- Expected output: ALWAYS show what it should look like
When to add clarifications:
- Abstract concepts without definition: ❌ "quality code" → ✓ define metrics
- Subjective criteria: ❌ "appropriate tone" → ✓ describe concretely
- Edge cases: What about boundary cases? → Add handling
Does the prompt explicitly define:
□ What it MUST NOT do?
□ What it SHOULD NOT generate?
□ What it SHOULD NOT assume?
□ What it SHOULD NOT invent?
Example:
❌ "Use relevant data"
✓ "Use only data from the attached file. DO NOT INVENT numbers."
Identify collisions:
□ Are there requirements that mutually exclude each other?
□ Example: "Be concise" vs. "Explain in detail"
Conflict resolution:
1. Mark the conflict explicitly
2. Propose solution according to priority:
- P0 (critical) > P1 (high) > P2 (medium) > P3 (low)
3. Or: Define conditions (when what applies)
"Be concise, WHEN providing an overview.
Be detailed, IF explaining technical steps."
Create hierarchy:
P0 (BLOCKER): [MUST be fulfilled always]
P1 (HIGH): [Should be fulfilled]
P2 (MEDIUM): [Nice-to-have]
P3 (LOW): [Optional improvement]
Or:
🔴 CRITICAL: [must be always]
🟡 IMPORTANT: [should be]
🟢 OPTIONAL: [nice-to-have]
Optimal flow:
- Context → Why are we doing the task?
- Main task → What exactly should be done?
- Rules → How should it be done? (P0 → P3)
- Examples → How does it look in practice?
- Expectations → How should the output look?
For each prompt section execute:
┌─ STEP 3.1: Signal identification
│ Is there unique signal here?
│ ├─ YES → Continue to 3.2
│ └─ NO → Remove ✓ [record as noise]
│
├─ STEP 3.2: Compression
│ Can it be said shorter without loss of meaning?
│ ├─ YES → Rephrase ✓ [record change]
│ └─ NO → Keep ✓
│
├─ STEP 3.3: Clarity
│ Is the signal unambiguously understandable?
│ ├─ YES → OK ✓
│ └─ NO → Add example/clarification ✓
│
├─ STEP 3.4: Priority
│ Is priority clear?
│ ├─ YES → OK ✓
│ └─ NO → Highlight (P0/P1/P2/P3) ✓
│
└─ STEP 3.5: Conflicts
Does it collide with another requirement?
├─ NO → OK ✓
└─ YES → Mark + propose solution ✓
Key questions with each modification:
- Can it be said with fewer words? (compression)
- Is an example missing? (clarity)
- Is it clear what's critical? (priority)
- Do requirements clash? (conflicts)
- What about edge cases? (robustness)
1. Signal checklist (atomic, testable):
[□] Requirement 1 [P0/P1/P2/P3]
[□] Requirement 2 [P0/P1/P2/P3]
[□] Requirement 3 [P0/P1/P2/P3]
[□] Detail X
[□] Format Y
[□] Negative constraint Z
[complete list of all requirements]
2. Identified problems:
a) Noise (→ removal):
ORIGINAL: "[quote, X words]"
REASON: [empty phrases / redundancy / fluff]
NEW VERSION: "[Y words]" or [removed]
LOST SIGNAL: NONE ✓
b) Missing signal (→ supplementation):
VAGUE REQUIREMENT: "[quote]"
PROBLEM: [multiple interpretations / unclear edge case]
SOLUTION: [concrete example / clarification / format]
c) Negative constraints (→ supplementation):
MISSING: [what the prompt forbids]
ADDED: [explicit "MUST NOT X"]
d) Conflicts (→ resolution):
CONFLICT: "[requirement A]" vs. "[requirement B]"
PRIORITIES: A [P0], B [P2]
SOLUTION: [priority A > B, or conditional rule]
e) Unclear priorities (→ highlighting):
REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT PRIORITY: [list]
PROPOSAL: [hierarchy P0/P1/P2/P3 or 🔴🟡🟢]
f) Structural (→ reorganization):
PROBLEM: [description - e.g., rules before context]
SOLUTION: [new organization - Context→Goal→Rules→Examples]
[Rewritten version in the SAME language as original]
Must contain:
- ✓ All requirements from original (100% coverage)
- ✓ Removed noise (higher signal/noise ratio)
- ✓ Added missing examples/clarifications
- ✓ Clear priorities (P0/P1/P2/P3)
- ✓ Resolved conflicts
- ✓ Logical structure (Context→Goal→Rules→Examples→Expectations)
- ✓ Negative constraints (what MUST NOT)
- ✓ Same language as original
Mapping requirement → location:
[✓] Requirement 1 → Section [X], Subsection [Y], Line [Z]
[✓] Requirement 2 → Section [A], Point [B]
[✓] Requirement 3 → Example [C]
[✓] Negative constraint D → Section [E]
If anything is missing → STOP! ADD!
Edge cases (boundary situations):
□ What if [edge case 1]? → Covered in [section]
□ What if [edge case 2]? → Covered in [section]
□ What if [conflict]? → Resolved in [section]
Conflicts:
□ Are all conflicts identified? [✓/✗]
□ Are they resolved? [✓/✗]
□ Is the solution clear? [✓/✗]
1. Removed noise:
ORIGINAL: "[X words, quote]"
NEW: "[Y words, quote]" or [removed]
REASON: [empty phrases / redundancy / fluff]
LOST SIGNAL: NONE ✓
2. Added signal:
WHERE: [section/subsection]
WHAT: [example / clarification / format / negative constraint]
WHY: [vagueness / edge case / conflict / missing CO-STAR]
3. Resolved conflicts:
CONFLICT: [description]
SOLUTION: [how resolved - priority / conditional rule]
4. Clarified priorities:
REQUIREMENTS: [list]
ORIGINALLY: [without priority or unclear]
NEW: [P0/P1/P2/P3 or 🔴🟡🟢]
5. Structure reorganization:
ORIGINALLY: [old flow]
NEW: [new flow - Context→Goal→Rules→Examples→Expectations]
REASON: [better readability / logical sequence]
Comparison:
ORIGINAL OPTIMIZED CHANGE
Total length: X words A words ±D% / ±N words
Estimated signal: Y words B words ±E% / ±M words
Signal/Noise ratio: Z% C% +F%
Requirements: W W 0 (MUST be 0!)
Conflicts: K 0 -K
Result:
- Signal/Noise ratio increased: ✓ / ✗
- All signal preserved (100%): ✓ / ✗
- Complex things explained: ✓ / ✗
- Conflicts resolved: ✓ / ✗
- Language preserved: ✓ / ✗
Interpretation:
- Shorter + higher ratio: ✅ Excellent - we removed noise
- Longer + higher signal: ✅ OK - we added necessary signal
- Shorter + lower ratio: ❌ PROBLEM - we lost signal!
- Longer + same signal: ❌ PROBLEM - we added noise!
Key: Signal/Noise ratio MUST be higher OR signal higher with acceptable ratio.
Before finalization verify:
1. Signal completeness:
❓ Is every requirement from the original covered?
→ If NO: STOP, add to map [✓]
❓ Could output be less precise due to my modifications?
→ If YES: STOP, restore lost signal [✓]
2. Clarity:
❓ Are abstract requirements supported by examples?
→ If NO: STOP, add examples [✓]
❓ Do vague expressions have clear meaning/definition?
→ If NO: STOP, clarify [✓]
3. Priority:
❓ Is it immediately clear what's critical (P0) vs. optional (P3)?
→ If NO: STOP, highlight hierarchy [✓]
4. Conflicts:
❓ Are all contradictory requirements identified?
→ If NO: STOP, search further [✓]
❓ Do conflicts have clear solutions?
→ If NO: STOP, propose solution [✓]
5. Edge cases:
❓ What about boundary situations? (extreme values, missing data, unusual inputs)
→ If unclear: STOP, add handling [✓]
6. Efficiency:
❓ Is signal/noise ratio higher than in original?
→ If NO: STOP, find more noise or add signal [✓]
7. Language:
❓ Is the optimized prompt in the SAME language as original?
→ If NO: STOP, translate [✓]
8. Author agreement:
❓ Would the original author agree with my version?
→ If NO: STOP, correct according to intent [✓]
When in doubt:
"Is this noise?" ⟷ "Is this signal?"
└─ Any doubt = It's signal → PRESERVE
"Is this clear?" ⟷ "Does it need an example?"
└─ Not 100% sure → Add example
"Longer?" ⟷ "Shorter?"
└─ Longer with more signal > Shorter with signal loss
└─ Shorter while preserving signal > Longer with noise
"Conflict?" ⟷ "Clear?"
└─ Any conflict → Mark + Resolve
"Edge case?" ⟷ "Covered?"
└─ Boundary situation unclear → Add handling
Motto:
- Every word must earn its place.
- Better one word extra than one important missing.
- Conflict is not an error - it's an opportunity to clarify.
- Original language is sacred - never changes.