• a prompt is close but needs sharpening
• a skill works but feels noisy or inconsistent
• minimal-diff improvement is better than rewriting from scratch
• quality needs to improve without losing the original structure

• current artifact
• target improvement
• hard constraints
• optional examples or references

1. Restate the artifact's current intent. Lock it in before changing anything — this is what you must preserve.
2. Identify the highest-leverage changes. Prefer one or two structural edits over many surface tweaks.
3. Preserve good parts unless they directly block the goal. Resist the urge to "clean up" working text.
4. Rewrite only the sections that need improvement. Leave the rest untouched so the diff is legible.
5. Produce a revised version plus a short changelog. The changelog makes the edit reviewable.
6. Note any tradeoffs introduced by the edits. Every improvement costs something; say what it costs.

• changed — what was edited (added / removed / rewrote)
• why — the specific failure or gap this edit fixes
• effect — the behavior change a reader should expect

• do not rewrite everything by default
• do not add complexity without payoff
• keep the result copy-pasteable
• prefer structural clarity over clever wording

1. Context beats instruction. When token budget is tight, richer background usually helps more than more rules. A simple instruction with strong context outperforms elaborate instructions with none.
2. Outcome over process. Say what success looks like, not every step to get there. Modern agents are good at means; they need clarity on ends.
3. Cut in this order. When the artifact is too long, cut verbose role definitions first, then restated context, then hedging language. Do not cut examples, success criteria, or output-format specs — those change behavior the most.
4. Right-sized beats thorough-looking. A 50-token instruction for a simple task is a feature, not a defect. Do not inflate to look rigorous.

• silently drifting the artifact's scope during "cleanup"
• adding length to look thorough when the original was already tight
• piling on ALWAYS/NEVER rules instead of explaining the underlying reason
• producing a diff so large it's effectively a rewrite without admitting it

Improve this prompt.

Improve the prompt below for reuse by coding agents. Preserve the original intent. Return: 1) revised prompt, 2) key changes, 3) likely failure modes.

• added target audience
• added preservation constraint
• added explicit output structure

• slightly longer prompt
• much higher consistency