Some of these sample prompts in this blog post are extremely verbose:

If you are considering leveraging any of the documentation or examples, you need to validate that the documentation or example actually matches what is currently in the code.

I have better luck being more concise and avoiding anthropomorphizing. Something like:

"validate documentation against existing code before implementation"

Should accomplish the same thing!

I have the best luck with RFC speak. “You MUST validate that the documentation validates existing code before implementation. You MAY update documentation to correct any mismatches.”

But I also use more casual style when investigating. “See what you think about the existing inheritance model, propose any improvements that will make it easier to maintain. I was thinking that creating a new base class for tree and flower to inherit from might make sense, but maybe that’s over complicating things”

(Expressing uncertainty seems to help avoid the model latching on to every idea with “you’re absolutely right!”)

I've had both experiences. On some projects concise instructions seem to work better. Other times, the LLM seems to benefit from verbosity.

This is definitely a way in which working with LLMs is frustrating. I find them helpful, but I don't know that I'm getting "better" at using them. Every time I feel like I've discovered something, it seems to be situation specific.

Not my experience at all. I find that the shorter my prompts, the more garbage the results. But if I give it a lot of detail and elaborate on my thought process, it performs very well, and often one-shots the solution.