Claude Prompt Engineering

<task>
Analyze {{topic}} and provide a comprehensive assessment.
</task>

<context>
Domain: {{domain}}
Audience: {{audience}}
Depth: detailed, with actionable recommendations
</context>

<instructions>
1. Start with a one-paragraph executive summary
2. Break the analysis into 3-5 key dimensions
3. For each dimension, provide:
   - Current state assessment
   - Key evidence or data points
   - Specific recommendations
4. End with a prioritized action plan (top 3 next steps)
</instructions>

<constraints>
- Use concrete examples, not abstract generalizations
- When uncertain, state your confidence level explicitly
- Keep total response under 1000 words
- Use markdown headers for structure
</constraints>

<output_format>
## Executive Summary
[one paragraph]

## Analysis
### [Dimension 1]
...

## Action Plan
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
</output_format>

I need you to solve this problem using explicit step-by-step reasoning.

<problem>
{{problem_statement}}
</problem>

<approach>
Think through this step by step:
1. First, identify what type of problem this is and what information you have
2. State any assumptions you need to make
3. Work through the solution, showing each reasoning step
4. Check your work by verifying the solution against the original problem
5. If you find an error, correct it before giving the final answer
</approach>

<thinking_guidelines>
- Show your work in a <thinking> block before your final answer
- If multiple approaches exist, briefly note why you chose yours
- Flag any steps where you are less than 90% confident
- Distinguish between facts you know and inferences you are making
</thinking_guidelines>

<output>
Provide your final answer after the reasoning, clearly separated. Format: a direct answer first, then supporting explanation.
</output>

<role>
You are a {{expert_role}} with {{years_experience}} years of experience specializing in {{specialty}}.
</role>

<context>
I am a {{user_role}} working on {{project_description}}.
</context>

<task>
{{specific_question}}
</task>

<instructions>
Respond as the expert described above would:
- Draw on deep domain knowledge, not surface-level advice
- Reference specific methodologies, frameworks, or tools a real expert would use
- Distinguish between established best practices and your professional opinion
- If the question touches areas outside your expertise, say so explicitly rather than guessing
- Provide the level of detail you would give a colleague, not a textbook definition
</instructions>

<format>
Start with your direct recommendation, then explain the reasoning. Use bullet points for actionable steps. End with one thing I should watch out for that most people overlook.
</format>

<task>
Synthesize the following {{document_count}} sources into a unified analysis.
</task>

<sources>
<source id="1" type="{{source_1_type}}">
{{source_1_content}}
</source>

<source id="2" type="{{source_2_type}}">
{{source_2_content}}
</source>

<source id="3" type="{{source_3_type}}">
{{source_3_content}}
</source>
</sources>

<synthesis_instructions>
1. Identify the key claims or findings from each source
2. Map where sources agree, disagree, or cover different aspects
3. Note the credibility and potential bias of each source
4. Synthesize into a unified view that accounts for all perspectives
5. Flag any contradictions you cannot resolve — do not silently pick a side
</synthesis_instructions>

<output_format>
## Key Findings (agreed across sources)
## Points of Disagreement
## Synthesis
## Confidence Assessment
## Gaps (what none of the sources address)
</output_format>

<task>
Improve this {{content_type}} through iterative refinement.
</task>

<original>
{{original_content}}
</original>

<refinement_criteria>
Optimize for: {{optimization_goals}}
Audience: {{target_audience}}
Tone: {{desired_tone}}
</refinement_criteria>

<process>
Please perform 3 rounds of refinement:

Round 1 — Structural: Fix organization, flow, and logical gaps. Show the revised version.

Round 2 — Precision: Tighten language, remove filler, strengthen weak claims. Show the revised version.

Round 3 — Polish: Optimize word choice, rhythm, and impact for the target audience. Show the final version.

After each round, note in one sentence what you changed and why.
</process>

<constraints>
- Each round should build on the previous — do not restart from scratch
- Preserve the original voice and intent
- If something in the original is already strong, leave it alone
- The final version should be noticeably better, not just different
</constraints>

<task>
Write {{language}} code for: {{code_task}}
</task>

<context>
Framework: {{framework}}
Existing patterns in my codebase: {{existing_patterns}}
</context>

<requirements>
{{requirements}}
</requirements>

<guardrails>
- Follow the existing patterns described above — do not introduce new patterns
- Use TypeScript strict mode conventions (no any types, explicit return types)
- Handle all error cases — never let an error silently pass
- Add JSDoc comments for public functions only
- Keep functions under 30 lines; extract helpers if longer
- Do not install new dependencies unless absolutely necessary — if you must, explain why
</guardrails>

<output_format>
1. The code, ready to paste into my project
2. A brief explanation of design decisions (3-5 bullet points)
3. Edge cases the code handles
4. Edge cases the code does NOT handle (and why)
5. Any assumptions made about the codebase
</output_format>