Zenaique

Spot what's wrong with this prompt: 'You are a helpful assistant. Please be thorough and accurate. Give a good answer.'

Spot the error·Easy·4.0 · 0·~2 min·Asked atPinterestWhylabsZepto·Relevant atAnthropic
Attempt it

Click any words you think contain an error. Click again to unmark.

Mark at least one word to submit.
TL;DR

Every directive is a vague adjective with no observable target. Replace 'helpful', 'thorough', 'accurate', 'good' with concrete actions or measurable properties the eval suite can check.

Memory aid
Sign in to see the mnemonic that makes this stick.
Easy to grasp

Imagine giving a new chef the instruction 'cook good food'. They cannot tell what good means, so they guess based on their training. Now imagine telling them 'use fresh ingredients, cook to medium-rare, and serve in under fifteen minutes'. They know exactly what to do and you can check whether they did it. The prompt here is the first version, three times. Every adjective sounds caring but tells the model nothing it can act on.

Concept explanation~2 min read

Everything you need to truly understand this topic: intuition, mechanics, step by step explanation, code, formulas, and worked example. Click to expand.

This eighty-character prompt is a compressed catalog of the most common production prompt-engineering anti-patterns. Three sentences, three unfalsifiable directives, zero behavior the model can act on, zero metrics the eval can check. Every adjective sounds like care and contains no information.

The question matters because prompts like this end up in production systems through inheritance. Someone writes a quick starter prompt for a prototype, the prototype graduates to a production service, and the vague directives travel with it. Six months later the team is debugging quality regressions on a prompt that never had any operational content to begin with.

The deep dive walks through each directive, names the specific anti-pattern, shows the operational rewrite, and connects each rewrite to an eval assertion you would write alongside it. The point is to make the refactor mechanical so it becomes a habit rather than a special-case effort.

Anti-pattern one, vague role

You are a helpful assistant looks like a role definition. It is not. It is a register cue with no scope, no audience, no domain, no behavioral envelope. The model interprets it as a tone hint (be polite, be cooperative) and otherwise falls back to its training defaults.

The operational fix names three things at once. The role itself (Python tutor, customer-support agent, legal research assistant). The audience (beginners learning their first language, enterprise users on a paid plan, contract attorneys). And the implicit goal (explain concepts, resolve tickets, surface case law citations). Each of those constrains the model's prior over what kind of output is appropriate.

A worked rewrite. You are a Python tutor explaining concepts to beginners learning their first programming language. Use concrete code examples. Avoid jargon without definition. This sentence gives the model a behavioral envelope it can latch onto, and gives reviewers something to check the output against.

Anti-pattern two, vague quality adjectives
Anti-pattern three, vague output specification
Vibes-driven vs eval-driven, the deeper pattern
The senior workflow for prompt refactoring
Sign in to unlock the full deep dive.

Situations where this technique stops working.

Sign in to see when this approach fails.

2–4 min · Everything important, quickly.

Sign in to see the quick scan of the deep dive.

Real products, models, and research that use this idea.

  • OpenAI's prompt engineering guide for GPT-5.5 leads with 'be specific' precisely because vague adjectives like 'helpful' and 'accurate' degrade compliance reliably.
  • Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.7 docs explicitly recommend naming concrete behaviors over asking for quality in the abstract.
Sign in to see more production examples.

What an interviewer would ask next. Try answering before peeking at the approach.

QHow would you write the eval suite for the rewritten prompt?
A

Map each directive to an assertion: citation-rate metric for the citation directive, word-count assertion for the length cap, structural-regex check for the definition then example then pitfall format.

2 more follow-ups an interviewer would ask next. Sign in to reveal them.

Red flags & common mistakes

The phrases that signal junior thinking. Click to expand.

Most common mistake

Reading this prompt and thinking it is just thin; the real failure is that every directive is unfalsifiable, so neither the model nor your eval suite can act on it.

Sign in to see all red flags and common mistakes.

60 second bullets to scan on the way to the call.

  • Why 'helpful assistant' is a register cue, not a role

  • The two operational shapes (action, measurable property)

Sign in to unlock the revision sheet.

Primary sources. Browse if you want the original framing.

Similar questions

Same topic, related formats. Practice these next.

4 curated
Next question
Flashcard: what is a stop sequence in an LLM API call and what is it used for?
Flashcard·Easy