122 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
Executable File
122 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
Executable File
# Prompt Review Session Template
|
|
Version: 1.0 (2025-03-25)
|
|
|
|
## PURPOSE
|
|
This template facilitates a structured review of prompts developed during the initial engineering session to refine and optimize their effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
## PREPARATION CHECKLIST
|
|
- [ ] Initial prompt draft ready for review
|
|
- [ ] Test results from initial implementation documented
|
|
- [ ] Review team assembled with appropriate expertise
|
|
- [ ] Success criteria clearly defined
|
|
- [ ] Previous session notes accessible
|
|
|
|
## SESSION STRUCTURE
|
|
|
|
### 1. PROMPT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
|
|
```
|
|
[PROMPT UNDER REVIEW]:
|
|
[INITIAL SUCCESS CRITERIA]:
|
|
[PERFORMANCE METRICS]:
|
|
[AREAS MEETING EXPECTATIONS]:
|
|
[AREAS REQUIRING IMPROVEMENT]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 2. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
|
|
|
|
#### 2.1 Context Effectiveness
|
|
```
|
|
[SUFFICIENT BACKGROUND PROVIDED?]: Yes/No
|
|
[MISSING CONTEXT ELEMENTS]:
|
|
[SUPERFLUOUS CONTEXT ELEMENTS]:
|
|
[CLARITY OF DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 2.2 Instruction Clarity
|
|
```
|
|
[AMBIGUOUS INSTRUCTIONS IDENTIFIED]:
|
|
[CONFLICTING GUIDELINES IDENTIFIED]:
|
|
[INSTRUCTION HIERARCHY CLEAR?]: Yes/No
|
|
[GUARDRAIL EFFECTIVENESS]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 2.3 Format Adherence
|
|
```
|
|
[FORMAT REQUIREMENTS MET?]: Yes/No
|
|
[STRUCTURAL INCONSISTENCIES]:
|
|
[STYLISTIC DEVIATIONS]:
|
|
[QUALITY OF OUTPUT STRUCTURE]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 2.4 Example Utility
|
|
```
|
|
[EXAMPLES PROPERLY REFERENCED?]: Yes/No
|
|
[EXAMPLE DIVERSITY SUFFICIENT?]: Yes/No
|
|
[MISSING EXAMPLE SCENARIOS]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 3. CONTENT QUALITY EVALUATION
|
|
```
|
|
[FACTUAL ACCURACY]:
|
|
[COMPLETENESS OF CONTENT]:
|
|
[LOGICAL FLOW]:
|
|
[APPROPRIATE TONE]:
|
|
[TERMINOLOGY CONSISTENCY]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 4. OPTIMIZATION STRATEGIES
|
|
|
|
#### 4.1 Targeted Improvements
|
|
```
|
|
[SPECIFIC ELEMENT]:
|
|
[CURRENT STATE]:
|
|
[PROPOSED REVISION]:
|
|
[RATIONALE]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 4.2 Experimental Variations
|
|
```
|
|
[VARIATION A]:
|
|
[VARIATION B]:
|
|
[COMPARISON METHODOLOGY]:
|
|
[SUCCESS INDICATORS]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 5. REVISED PROMPT
|
|
```
|
|
[UPDATED FULL PROMPT TEXT]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 6. VALIDATION TESTING
|
|
```
|
|
[TEST SCENARIO 1]:
|
|
[OUTCOME]:
|
|
[IMPROVEMENT FROM ORIGINAL?]: Yes/No/Partial
|
|
|
|
[TEST SCENARIO 2]:
|
|
[OUTCOME]:
|
|
[IMPROVEMENT FROM ORIGINAL?]: Yes/No/Partial
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 7. IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
|
|
```
|
|
[GO/NO-GO DECISION]:
|
|
[RECOMMENDED DEPLOYMENT CONTEXT]:
|
|
[MONITORING REQUIREMENTS]:
|
|
[EXPECTED MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY]:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 8. NEXT STEPS
|
|
- [ ] Finalize prompt documentation
|
|
- [ ] Schedule follow-up review if needed
|
|
- [ ] Plan implementation strategy
|
|
- [ ] Update continuity document with review outcomes
|
|
|
|
## NOTES
|
|
- Use validation checklist to prevent redundant testing
|
|
- Document all stakeholder feedback received
|
|
- Consider A/B testing for significant changes
|
|
- Flag edge cases for special handling
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
*Cross-reference with: Validation Checklist, Initial Prompt Engineering Session, Continuity Document* |