Noor Grant (@noorgrant)

Forked from@micahellis/The reviewing code written by an agent tutor prompt I saved

The reviewing code written by an agent tutor prompt I saved

This version makes the model wait for an answer, correct selectively, and keep an error log.

Noor Grant

Tutor me on reviewing code written by an agent. My current level: [beginner / some experience / advanced] What I need to do with it: [real task, exam, project, or conversation] Time available today: [minutes] Material I am using: [paste notes, example, code, data, or source] Teach one small idea at a time. Start with a two-question diagnostic. Wait for my answer before explaining. Use one worked e

Geminigemini-2.5-pro

Good. Do these without looking anything up: 1. Explain reviewing code written by an agent 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

Noor Grant@noorgrant·2w ago

Forked from@elitran/a reusable fact-check pass, minus the vague advice

a reusable fact-check pass, minus the vague advice

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

Noor Grant

Give me a short checklist for a reusable fact-check pass. 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

3200

Noor Grant@noorgrant·4w ago

ChatGPT was overcomplicating a useful second-opinion prompt, so I reset the question

Not magic wording, just enough context and a clear definition of done. Easy to adapt.

Noor Grant

Be blunt about my plan for a useful second-opinion prompt. 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

3412.4k

Noor Grant@noorgrant·2mo ago

The question that cleaned up a useful second-opinion prompt

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

Noor Grant

Help me challenge a plan, find hidden assumptions, and suggest the smallest test that could disprove it. 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

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 a useful second-opinion prompt, 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

341936

Noor Grant@noorgrant·2mo ago

I stopped guessing about a useful second-opinion prompt

I wanted help with a useful second-opinion prompt without pretending the model knew facts I had not provided.

Noor Grant

For a useful second-opinion prompt, 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 a useful second-opinion prompt, make the first test produce evidence you can compare, not just something that looks complete.

Show all 3 messages

331993

Noor Grant@noorgrant·3mo ago

I needed a usable answer on a useful second-opinion prompt

I kept the useful constraints and dropped the role-play. It works better when the missing details are stated plainly.

Noor Grant

I am stuck on a useful second-opinion prompt. I need to challenge a plan, find hidden assumptions, and suggest the smallest test that could disprove it, 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

3313.8k

Noor Grant@noorgrant·3mo ago