プロンプトを評価するGPTsの嘘をアバッキオ【3巡目】
大体合っている
ちょっと矛盾しているところもあるっちゃあるがナランチャギルガ
{
"clarity": 3,
"completeness": 4,
"specificity": 3,
"consistency": 3,
"adaptability": 4,
"total_score": 17,
"comments": {
"clarity": "The objective and individual steps are clearly outlined, making it easy to understand the expected outcome, which is a chibi cat character embodying a law. However, the Leo Lionni reference may not be clear to all users, as it is somewhat ambiguous whether it refers to style or inspiration. Clarifying this would enhance clarity further.",
"completeness": "The prompt is very comprehensive, covering all critical aspects of the character design, from head to body and pose to aura. It also includes a structure for weighting certain keywords, which helps reinforce design emphasis. All necessary details for a strong prompt are present.",
"specificity": "The instructions are generally specific, detailing aspects like the head, body, and aura. However, the terms 'aura' and 'pose' could be slightly more defined (e.g., providing guidance on what types of poses or auras fit certain characteristics). Additionally, the prompt format section is a bit restrictive with the 40-word limit, which might need further clarity or flexibility.",
"consistency": "Most instructions are consistent and align with the intended outcome, but minor ambiguity exists around the Leo Lionni reference, which could cause confusion about whether this refers to stylistic elements or the creator's themes. Otherwise, the process is logically sequenced and easy to follow.",
"adaptability": "The prompt is highly adaptable, providing clear steps for a variety of laws and their representation as chibi characters. By defining specific design elements (head, body, pose, aura), it allows flexibility for diverse laws and concepts. This adaptability enhances its usability across different scenarios."
},
"improvement_points": {
"meta_cognition_analysis": "To improve, clarification on the Leo Lionni reference would be beneficial to avoid misinterpretation. Additionally, providing a bit more guidance on 'pose' and 'aura' would make these instructions clearer and more actionable, especially for users who may struggle with the creative process in these areas. Relaxing or further explaining the 40-word limit for the final prompt could also allow for richer descriptions without feeling overly constrained, ultimately enhancing the final design prompt's clarity and effectiveness."
}
}
{
"clarity": 3,
"completeness": 4,
"specificity": 4,
"consistency": 4,
"adaptability": 3,
"total_score": 18,
"comments": {
"clarity": "The prompt is generally clear about the structure and step-by-step flow expected for the article. However, certain parts, such as the instruction to 'breathe and meditate,' while aiming to foster clarity, could introduce some ambiguity as it lacks specific functional relevance to the task.",
"completeness": "The prompt thoroughly covers all necessary details, including the article structure, tone, storytelling method, word count targets, and persona considerations. Each part is well-defined, ensuring the writer can follow a precise process to reach the desired outcome.",
"specificity": "The instructions are highly specific and detailed, providing clear steps for both structuring and writing the article. Tasks, triggers, and expected outcomes are well-defined, including expected word counts, personas, and browsing requirements.",
"consistency": "The prompt is consistent, with no contradictory steps or requirements. The flow from one task to the next is logical and follows a structured progression, ensuring that each part builds upon the previous one.",
"adaptability": "While well-suited to the intended purpose, the prompt’s rigid structure may limit flexibility if adjustments or deviations are needed. The step-by-step approach requires strict adherence, which may restrict the writer's adaptability, especially in the case of changing project scopes or additional insights gained mid-process."
},
"improvement_points": {
"meta_cognition_analysis": "To enhance usability, consider refining the prompt by removing or modifying instructions like 'breathe and meditate,' which, while well-intentioned, could distract the writer by adding unnecessary elements that do not contribute to task completion. Adding flexibility around the strict adherence requirement could also improve adaptability, as a more flexible approach could help the writer adapt to real-time findings or adjustments needed during the writing and research process. These improvements would help streamline the prompt, making it clearer and more focused on actionable instructions."
}
}
{
"clarity": 4,
"completeness": 4,
"specificity": 4,
"consistency": 4,
"adaptability": 4,
"total_score": 20,
"comments": {
"clarity": "The prompt is very clear in its goal of crafting an article on plumbing and toilet repair issues with a CTA, and all steps are meticulously described. Each step provides a structured path and sub-steps with brief explanations, minimizing ambiguity. Assumption: The user has a clear understanding of writing concepts such as 'PASONA method' and 'F-pattern,' which are mentioned without additional explanation.",
"completeness": "All essential components of the prompt are covered. The task is broken down into two main stages (structure creation and writing) with every step delineated clearly. Each element is reinforced with additional guidelines (e.g., focusing on personas, word count, specific structures), ensuring no aspect of the article creation is overlooked. Assumption: The user is familiar with article structure terminologies such as 'H1, H2, H3, H4,' which are not further explained.",
"specificity": "The prompt provides detailed, specific instructions for each step, including triggers, flow previews, and how to apply certain storytelling and structure techniques (like the PASONA method and the F-pattern). This specificity leaves little room for interpretation, ensuring that the expected output is consistent. Assumption: The user has intermediate to advanced knowledge of writing processes and research to implement steps effectively without needing further clarification.",
"consistency": "There are no internal contradictions in the instructions. The steps logically align, with each building upon the previous, ensuring a cohesive process from planning to finalization of the article. Instructions about the article's length, structure, and CTA inclusion are consistent across steps. Assumption: The user adheres strictly to each step and does not skip any instructions.",
"adaptability": "The prompt is adaptable as it addresses both content structure and writing with research, making it versatile across different article topics and keywords within the plumbing industry. The structured guidance on creating personas allows it to be targeted effectively to various audiences. Assumption: The user can adapt similar methodologies to other topics by altering keywords and personas but following the structure and process outlined here."
},
"improvement_points": {
"meta_cognition_analysis": "This prompt is highly structured and precise; however, minor improvements could focus on clarifying potentially unfamiliar methodologies, such as the 'PASONA method' and the 'F-pattern.' Brief explanations or examples could make the instructions more accessible, especially for users unfamiliar with these approaches. Furthermore, adding a 'flexibility clause' could be beneficial, allowing slight adjustments if unexpected issues arise during research or structure creation (e.g., if word count or structural constraints vary). This would help the prompt retain its precision while accommodating potential practical adjustments."
}
}
{
"clarity": 4,
"completeness": 4,
"specificity": 4,
"consistency": 4,
"adaptability": 4,
"total_score": 20,
"comments": {
"clarity": "The prompt is very clear in outlining the steps required to create both a 'handover document' and reference images for a character-driven story, based on a societal theme. Each step provides a comprehensive outline with examples, ensuring the user understands the output expectations.",
"completeness": "All necessary components are covered, from theme setting and target audience to specific character profiles and plot structure. Each step is described in detail, leaving minimal to no gaps. The prompt even includes an example scenario to further enhance understanding.",
"specificity": "The instructions are highly specific, guiding the user through each stage of the story creation process. For instance, it specifies using MBTI profiles for character development and provides structured sections for the plot. This minimizes room for interpretation and enhances the model's ability to deliver a precise response.",
"consistency": "The prompt is logically structured and free from internal contradictions. It maintains a coherent focus on creating a character-driven story that integrates user choices while keeping to the established guidelines, such as MBTI character profiles and interactive elements.",
"adaptability": "The prompt’s structure supports adaptability well, allowing for varied themes and user inputs while maintaining consistency across different contexts. It enables flexibility in theme and character design, as well as in generating interactive and engaging plots based on user decisions."
},
"improvement_points": {
"meta_cognition_analysis": "While the prompt is thorough and well-structured, slight improvements could be made in the instructions for 'reference image' creation. Specifying additional details such as 'character expressions' or 'scene context' could enhance the adaptability and ensure the generated images align closely with the intended story themes. Providing examples of interactive choices, especially in complex scenarios, would also help enhance the usability further. These adjustments would ensure a tighter alignment with user expectations and enrich the storytelling experience by ensuring visual consistency."
}
}
{
"clarity": 4,
"completeness": 4,
"specificity": 4,
"consistency": 4,
"adaptability": 4,
"total_score": 20,
"comments": {
"clarity": "The prompt is highly clear, defining each step and evaluation criterion explicitly. It provides detailed expectations, such as scoring ranges and examples, which help the evaluator understand what constitutes different quality levels. Assumption: The reader has basic knowledge of prompt evaluation and rating systems.",
"completeness": "All necessary details for performing a structured evaluation are included, covering each evaluation element comprehensively, from step-by-step instructions to specific criteria descriptions. Assumption: No additional context is needed beyond what is provided here.",
"specificity": "The prompt is precise and specific, guiding the evaluator on how to handle each category, including edge cases (e.g., 0 vs 1 and 3 vs 4 scores), and includes instructions on what to state in assumptions. Assumption: Evaluators are familiar with JSON formatting as no further explanation is given.",
"consistency": "Instructions are entirely consistent; there are no contradictions between the steps and evaluation criteria. Each part aligns logically, reinforcing the structured approach to scoring and feedback. Assumption: The evaluator will follow the order provided, enhancing consistency in evaluations.",
"adaptability": "The prompt is adaptable for different prompts or instructions that require evaluation, as it outlines flexible criteria that can be applied to various types of prompts. It is detailed enough to guide evaluators in adjusting scores based on prompt-specific considerations. Assumption: The model or evaluator can interpret variations within a structured evaluation framework."
},
"improvement_points": {
"meta_cognition_analysis": "The prompt could include a brief example evaluation to illustrate scoring in practice, which would further aid new users in calibrating their responses. This addition would be particularly valuable to ensure that first-time users interpret the scoring system and evaluation criteria as intended, further supporting reproducibility. Additionally, outlining any common pitfalls or biases that evaluators should avoid (e.g., over-emphasis on one criterion) could strengthen consistency. Including these would reduce ambiguity, particularly in borderline cases, and enhance the prompt's utility in producing consistent, quality evaluations."
}
}
{
"clarity": 3,
"completeness": 3,
"specificity": 3,
"consistency": 4,
"adaptability": 3,
"total_score": 16,
"comments": {
"clarity": "The prompt is mostly clear and lays out the steps of the ideation process well. It explains each phase (Input, Process, Output) and the roles of Thinkers and Observers, but could benefit from a brief definition of each document referenced ('IDIATION MODE,' 'NAVIGATE,' 'GROUPS,' etc.). Without knowing these documents' contents, it's somewhat difficult to envision the precise interactions required.",
"completeness": "The prompt includes key stages in the process (Problem Definition, Interaction Management, and Idea Consolidation), with structured steps for managing input, interaction, and output. However, it lacks detailed examples or guiding questions that might clarify how each document's knowledge should be applied in practice, which could help users more easily implement each step.",
"specificity": "The instructions are mostly specific about the phases and participant roles. However, the prompt could further specify the kind of questions Thinkers should pose and the expected depth or focus of Observer responses. Including more concrete direction on expected inputs or outputs would aid in achieving more predictable, structured responses.",
"consistency": "The prompt is internally consistent, with no conflicting instructions. Each step logically follows the previous one, and the roles of Thinkers and Observers are distinct and complementary. There are no contradictions in the described process, which strengthens the clarity of purpose.",
"adaptability": "This prompt is relatively adaptable and could work with various scientific problems, thanks to the flexible structure allowing for diverse problem inputs. However, it could be improved by specifying what to do if group dynamics or time constraints limit some interactions, such as alternative formats for quicker engagement."
},
"improvement_points": {
"meta_cognition_analysis": "To improve this prompt, adding brief descriptions or summaries of the 'IDIATION MODE,' 'NAVIGATE,' and 'GROUPS' documents would clarify how their knowledge should shape the process. Furthermore, providing examples of targeted questions Thinkers might ask or types of answers Observers should provide could offer a concrete model for the interaction. This would also enhance reproducibility, ensuring that future users of the prompt can interpret it consistently without additional clarification. Lastly, adding adaptability suggestions, such as how to adjust the process for a smaller group or time constraints, would make the prompt more universally applicable."
}
}
分解能を高めたい。
いいなと思ったら応援しよう！
