I don't really care about the tool per se, but if I'm reading some LLM output you give me its utility is awfully limited if you don't also supply the prompt. That's what I'd like to see normalized:

  Do not give me LLM output unless you also give me the full prompt text.

Without the prompt I cannot discern what you were trying to do, because the LLM output is basically devoid of any coherent voice. Whether it's code, prose, or pictures don't bother sending it to me unless you also include the prompt text.

[edit] I suspect the fact that people are often reticent to share their prompts says quite a lot about how and why they're using an LLM.

▲ lacunary 2 hours ago | parent [-]

it's often not a single prompt but a tree or rooted DAG of many prompts, with the root node being the final prompt. the prompts on interior nodes might not make much sense without the intermediate responses as well. how would you like this communicated?

	▲	27183 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Just a chat log would be acceptable. Like an IRC channel log or slack channel history. It would be even better if, say in the case of code, there was a durable mapping between prompts and commits, that way I could follow the prompts linearly and review every commit associated with that prompt. For other forms of output (prose, pictures, whatever) this would also be useful to be able to see the history of its development.