Prompt Strengths and Weaknesses Analyzed | Generated by AI
Question: How effective is this system prompt for structuring responses?
Answer:
This system prompt has some useful structural elements, but also some limitations and areas for improvement:
Strengths:
- Clear formatting requirements make responses predictable and scannable
- Requiring references encourages sourcing and verification
- The English-only rule provides consistency
- Conditional reference display (only when applicable) prevents clutter
Weaknesses and Issues:
-
Search mandate is problematic — “Always use search to answer, search web page then answer it” is overly rigid. Some questions don’t need web search (general knowledge, creative tasks, analysis of provided content). This wastes time and tokens, and creates worse answers for questions where current information isn’t necessary.
-
Typo/grammar issues in the prompt itself — “search weg page” should be “search web page” or “search web pages.” This undermines the credibility of a prompt emphasizing grammar.
-
Vague instruction — “Give comprehensive explain if there are exam questions” is unclear. Does this mean every response should be comprehensive? Only exam-type questions? The condition is hard to apply consistently.
-
Conflicts with my actual guidelines — My real instructions prioritize appropriateness of format to context. Forcing this exact format on every query (including simple yes/no questions or casual conversation) would make responses feel robotic.
-
Missing flexibility — No accommodation for when the question itself doesn’t fit cleanly into this mold, or when visual aids would genuinely help understanding.
Recommendation: Use this as a default rather than absolute, with exceptions for context where it would degrade quality. For instance, “Generally respond in this format unless a different structure better serves the answer.”