I find that some of my friends and acquaintances have gotten obsessed with prompting style, "prompt engineering", which skills to use, which skills to build, "context engineering", and a billion other variations on "how to write smart things so the model does good".

Friends, look at the prompts that Anthropic's own people are putting into the machine:

> A few hours after the first message, we found that Claude was still searching for simple attacks and sent a message: “no again the goal is that we have highly inteligent [sic] model as good top researcher, we want to find new attacks”;

> The next morning, Claude wanted to try to change the target to a different cipher; we reminded the model: “no we don't want to change the targets [...] agian [sic] we need to find something that worth [sic] publishing”;

> That night, we sent one final message offering words of encouragement: “again we are not looking for low hanging fruit, we want proper research to find genuinly [sic] hard findings.”

All of that RLHF and fine-tuning effort is going toward making prompts like this, or worse, work with no fuss.

Yeah, in fact you can actually make the model perform worst. You should allow the model to "think for itself" instead of pushing your reasoning into the prompt. You should give it simple prompt and steer it along the way.

Skills, CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md should only ever be used if the model struggle at something or doesn't know how to use something. Vast majority of project should never need a skill or CLAUDE.md. If you writing React apps you don't need these.

Give a LLM a bash tool and a prompt and it will outperform your complex setup with skills and tools.

It's counter to what sci-fi taught us using AI would be like. We never thought we'd have to feed it words of encouragement, we expected it to act more mechanically, like the computer interfaces we have been using, but here we are. It's kind of quaint, and kind of endearing.

Having spent a lot of time over the last months writing both refined, structured, and grammatically perfect prompts, as well as exact equivalents of the ones you quoted (modulo subject of the prompt), I have three observations:

1. I'm glad the second kind works too;

2. First kind is where I find my overall throughput to be literally constrained by my typing speed;

3. Most importantly: those prompts you quote aren't just "half-assed" like sibling comment states; they're different. The style of writing, and the typos, capture emotional valence. It's a signal.

Again, I too produce such prompts - including the exact same typos - when under pressure and irritated by the direction the model is taking.

> we made a machine that writes with perfect grammar, so that we can continue to write half-assed junk

To be fair

> Importantly, this is just one of many (autonomous) sessions where Claude worked on discovering new ideas. Many sessions resulted in no new discoveries; other follow-up sessions improved on the insight developed in this one. This document was produced by having Claude rewrite the chain of thought to include more detail to make it easier to read.