Fix a Vague Prompt
'Make it good', 'be detailed', 'keep it interesting' — vague prompts get vague output. The fix is mechanical: replace every fuzzy word with a checkable instruction.
If you can't say what makes the output right, the model can't either. Success criteria turn 'make it good' into a checkable definition of done.
The quiet defect in most prompts: no definition of done. 'Good', 'high quality', and 'useful' feel like criteria but check nothing. A success criterion is a sentence you could evaluate the output against — 'a reader can act on it without follow-up questions', 'every claim has a number or a source'. This resource loads a prompt whose only quality bar is the word 'good' and rewrites it so the bar becomes explicit, checkable, and yours.
Rewrite the loaded prompt
'Good' becomes a success-criteria slot; 'covers what they need to know' becomes a coverage list you name.
Write the criterion as a test
Good test: 'a new hire can complete day one without asking their manager anything in the guide'. Bad test: 'comprehensive'.
Reuse the pattern
Any prompt with an approval step deserves a criteria line — it's the line reviewers actually use.
It turns the vague bar into a checkable one. On the loaded onboarding-guide prompt, 'good' becomes a success-criteria slot and 'covers what they need to know' becomes a coverage list you name. The prompt-rewriter reshapes the pasted text into that structure; it doesn't write the onboarding guide itself — you run the rewritten prompt in your assistant afterward.
Because "'done' is a decision, not a default." The rewrite leaves the criterion as a placeholder for you to write as a test — a good one is "a new hire can complete day one without asking their manager anything in the guide," a bad one is "comprehensive." The tool exposes the slot; the standard your reviewers actually use is yours to define.
'Make it good', 'be detailed', 'keep it interesting' — vague prompts get vague output. The fix is mechanical: replace every fuzzy word with a checkable instruction.
The fastest fix for mediocre AI output is rewriting the prompt: vague words become concrete instructions, hedges become commitments, and missing elements get filled.
Format, length, and exclusions are the three levers that make AI output land in usable shape. A rewrite shows how to retrofit them onto a prompt that has none.
See exactly what changed between v1 and v2 of a prompt — added, removed, and modified instructions, plus whether the revision reduced or introduced risk.
A side-by-side way to decide between two ChatGPT prompt drafts — scored on clarity, specificity, output control, and risk instead of gut feeling.
A set of before-and-after examples showing exactly what prompt cleanup removes — and what it deliberately leaves alone.
Rewrite a weak prompt into a stronger one — vague wording fixed, gaps filled, goal unchanged.
The output reads well and answers the question, so you almost ship it — then you notice it broke a rule you cared about and skipped a section you needed. "Looks good" was never the test. Here's how to give AI the acceptance criteria up front and check the output against them before you rely on it.
"Write a professional email" comes back smooth, generic, and aimed at the wrong reader — so you burn three rounds feeding in details you should have led with. Here's how to write a short first-draft brief up front, so the draft lands closer to what you needed.
Hand AI a vague requirement like "improve onboarding" and it fills the blanks with its own guesses — nobody said what "done" means. Here's how to turn a requirement into observable, testable acceptance criteria you can review before any implementation.