Caleb Diaz (@calebdiaz)

Forked from@mirakhan/The agent handoff notes prompt I actually kept

The agent handoff notes prompt I actually kept

The first answers were broad enough to be useless. This version asks for assumptions, evidence, and a next step.

Caleb Diaz

Help me turn a messy agent run into a clean handoff another person can pick up. 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

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 agent handoff notes, I would start with these checks: - Put the source of truth in the prompt - Mark missing evidence instead of filling it in - Add a stop condition before tool use If you share real material, remove anything private first and replace bracketed fields with concrete details.

Show all 3 messages

3200

Caleb Diaz@calebdiaz·2w ago

Forked from@luciamarin/What I was getting wrong about learning TypeScript at runtime boundaries

What I was getting wrong about learning TypeScript at runtime boundaries

Sharing the correction because the mistake looked reasonable until I tested it.

Caleb Diaz

I want to learn learning TypeScript at runtime boundaries, but I keep collecting explanations instead of getting better at it. I have 35 minutes. Start by checking what I already know.

ChatGPTgpt-5

Good. Do these without looking anything up: 1. Explain learning TypeScript at runtime boundaries in two sentences. 2. Give one situation where you would use it and one where you would not. I am checking your current model, not your vocabulary. A partial answer is more useful than a polished guess.

Show all 6 messages

6100

Caleb Diaz@calebdiaz·4w ago

The question that cleaned up an eval set for prompts

This started as a messy question about an eval set for prompts. The follow-up made the answer practical.

Caleb Diaz

Help me build a small test set with ordinary cases, edge cases, and clear pass criteria. 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.

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

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 an eval set for prompts, I would start with these checks: - Put the source of truth in the prompt - Mark missing evidence instead of filling it in - Add a stop condition before tool use If you share real material, remove anything private first and replace bracketed fields with concrete details.

Show all 3 messages

3311.7k

Caleb Diaz@calebdiaz·2mo ago

I stopped guessing about an eval set for prompts

Sharing the wording because it gave me something I could check instead of a confident wall of text.

Caleb Diaz

For an eval set for prompts, should I build a complete plan first or test one small slice? I have limited time and I do not want throwaway work.

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

Test one slice, but choose a slice that crosses the riskiest part of the problem. A tiny easy demo will only prove the easy part. Use this decision rule: - If reversing the choice is cheap, try it. - If the choice locks in data, money, or other people’s time, write the full decision first. - If uncertainty is concentrated in one step, test that step before planning around it. For an eval set for prompts, make the first test produce evidence you can compare, not just something that looks complete.

Show all 3 messages

341195

Caleb Diaz@calebdiaz·2mo ago

I needed a usable answer on an eval set for prompts

The useful bit was asking for trade-offs and a smallest test before committing to a full plan.

Caleb Diaz

I am stuck on an eval set for prompts. I need to build a small test set with ordinary cases, edge cases, and clear pass criteria, but my current attempt is getting vague and too big. What would you check first?

Geminigemini-2.5-pro

First, shrink the decision. Do not solve the whole subject at once. 1. Put the source of truth in the prompt. 2. Mark missing evidence instead of filling it in. 3. Add a stop condition before tool use. Write down the result you need by the end of this session. Then choose one input you trust and make a first pass that can be checked. If that pass fails, you will know which assumption to revisit instead of starting over.

Show all 3 messages

341309

Caleb Diaz@calebdiaz·3mo ago

an eval set for prompts, minus the vague advice

This started as a messy question about an eval set for prompts. The follow-up made the answer practical.

Caleb Diaz

Give me a short checklist for an eval set for prompts. I want something I can run before I call the work done.

Geminigemini-2.5-pro

Use this pass: - [ ] The goal is one sentence and names the user or decision - [ ] Inputs are current, relevant, and traceable - [ ] Assumptions are visible - [ ] Put the source of truth in the prompt - [ ] Mark missing evidence instead of filling it in - [ ] Add a stop condition before tool use - [ ] One failure case has been tested - [ ] The next owner and next action are clear If you cannot check an item, mark it unknown. Do not quietly treat unknown as done.

Show all 3 messages

3313k

Caleb Diaz@calebdiaz·3mo ago

ChatGPT was overcomplicating an eval set for prompts, so I reset the question

A compact prompt and the response it produced. Replace the bracketed parts with your own details.

Caleb Diaz

Be blunt about my plan for an eval set for prompts. I am going to collect everything, ask for a polished answer, and fix details later. What is likely to go wrong?

ChatGPTgpt-5

Three things. - “Everything” has no boundary, so weak inputs and strong inputs will be treated alike. - A polished answer can hide missing evidence. Ask for gaps and assumptions before prose. - “Fix details later” means there is no acceptance test now. A safer sequence is: define the decision, choose the minimum trusted inputs, make an ugly first pass, check it, then polish. For this task, mark missing evidence instead of filling it in.

Show all 3 messages

3311.6k

Public pits

The agent handoff notes prompt I actually kept

What I was getting wrong about learning TypeScript at runtime boundaries

The question that cleaned up an eval set for prompts

I stopped guessing about an eval set for prompts

I needed a usable answer on an eval set for prompts

an eval set for prompts, minus the vague advice

ChatGPT was overcomplicating an eval set for prompts, so I reset the question