Interestingly enough, sometimes "you" is used to give instructions (177 times), sometimes "Claude" (224 times). Is this just random based on who added the rule, or is there some purpose behind this differentiation?
I’ve noticed in my own prompt-writing that goes into code bases that it’s basically just programming, but… without any kind of consistency-checking, and with terrible refactoring tools. I find myself doing stuff like this all the time by accident.
One of many reasons I find the tech something to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
The main trouble is if you find that a different term produces better output, and use that term a lot (potentially across multiple prompts), but don't want to change every case of it, or use a repeated pattern with some variation that and need to change them to a different pattern.
You can of course apply an LLM to these problems (what else are you going to do? Find-n-replace and regex are better than nothing, but not awesome) but there's always the risk of them mangling things in odd and hard-to-spot ways.
Templating can help, sometimes, but you may have a lot of text before you spot places you could usefully add placeholders.
Writing prompts is just a weird form of programming, and has a lot of the same problems, but is hampered in use of traditional programming tools and techniques by the language.
> & what do you feel is missing in consistency checking? wrt input vs output or something else?
Well, sort of—it does suck that the stuff's basically impossible to unit-test or to develop as units, all you can do is test entire prompts. But what I was thinking of was terminology consistency. Your editor won't red-underline if you use a synonym when you'd prefer to use the same term in all cases, like it would if you tried to use the wrong function name. It won't produce a type error if you if you've chosen a term or turn of phrase that's more ambiguous than some alternative. That kind of thing.
