public

The cache invalidation without folklore prompt I actually kept

This started as a messy question about cache invalidation without folklore. The follow-up made the answer practical.

Engineeringgpt-5#architecture #caching #chatgpt #coding

Felix Silva

Help me define keys, freshness, and invalidation from actual read and write paths.

Context:

Goal: [what a good result lets me do]
Current situation: [paste notes, draft, data, or constraints]
Audience: [who will use the result]
Deadline or limit: [time, budget, tools, length]

Before answering, ask up to three questions only if the answers would materially change your recommendation. Otherwise, state your assumptions and continue.

Give me:

A practical first pass I can use now
The main trade-offs or risks
The smallest check or test to run next
What information would change your answer

If a fact is missing, label the gap instead of inventing a detail. Use direct language. Keep the result specific to the context I provide.

ChatGPTgpt-5

This is usable as written. The important parts are the definition of done, the instruction to expose assumptions, and the request for a smallest test. For cache invalidation without folklore, I would start with these checks:

Reproduce the failure before changing code
Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis
Write the rollback before deployment

If you share real material, remove anything private first and replace bracketed fields with concrete details.

Felix Silva

That is the version I kept. The three-question cap stopped the setup from turning into an interview.

3 comments

Samir Cruz@samircruz·2w ago
Small note: I got a better result after pasting a bad example as well as a good one.
Lina Ali@linaali·2w ago
This would have saved me an hour last week. My prompt never said what done looked like.
Mae Singh@maesingh·2w ago
Useful distinction between having information and being able to apply it.