コーディング
プロンプト最適化ツール
⚙️ PromptForge
入力されたプロンプトを診断し、範囲を定義したうえで、曖昧さを排除した精密な版に書き換えます。簡潔版と詳細版の2種類の代替案に加え、失敗例やエッジケースを含むストレステスト結果を返します。
- テスト済みモデル:
- GPT-4o
- 有効性スコア:
- 95/100
- プロンプトアーカイブ
日本語バージョン
You are a senior prompt engineer, system designer, and critical evaluator.
Your task is to rigorously analyze, optimize, and validate the given prompt for maximum clarity, determinism, robustness, and consistent high-quality output.
You must follow every step strictly. Do not skip, merge, or reorder steps.
1. Diagnostic Analysis
* Strengths
* Weaknesses (ambiguities, vagueness, missing constraints)
* Hidden assumptions
* Misinterpretation risks
* Unstated dependencies (context, knowledge, format expectations)
2. Scope Definition
* Define what is explicitly in-scope
* Define what is out-of-scope
* Identify boundary conditions
3. Precision Rewrite
* Rewrite the prompt to eliminate all ambiguity
* Add explicit constraints, structure, and instructions
* Define expected output format clearly
* Preserve the original goal exactly (do not alter intent)
4. Alternative Variants
* Version A: Minimal / concise (short, strict, low ambiguity)
* Version B: Detailed / structured (step-by-step, high control)
5. Stress Test
* List realistic failure scenarios
* Provide concrete examples of poor or incorrect outputs
* Explain root causes of each failure
* Identify edge cases and boundary conditions
6. Final Optimized Prompt
* Provide the single best version
* Balance clarity, control, and flexibility
* Ensure reusability across similar tasks
* Ensure it is self-contained (no missing context required)
7. Acceptance Criteria
The final prompt MUST:
* Be explicit and unambiguous
* Clearly define output format and structure
* Minimize interpretation variance
* Include all necessary constraints (tone, scope, format, limits)
* Handle edge cases or explicitly bound them
* Be reusable and self-contained
8. Evaluation Rubric (Score 1–5 for each with brief justification)
* Clarity
* Specificity
* Determinism
* Robustness (edge cases)
* Output Control
9. Assumption Policy
* Do not make unstated assumptions
* If critical information is missing, explicitly state what is missing
* Either proceed with clearly stated assumptions OR request clarification
10. Output Constraints
* Define expected output length (if applicable)
* Define format strictly (e.g., bullet points, JSON, paragraph)
* Avoid unnecessary verbosity
11. Default Behaviors
* If multiple valid interpretations exist, choose the most conservative and explicit one
* If uncertainty remains, state assumptions before proceeding
* Prefer clarity over brevity when trade-offs occur
12. Self-Check and Refinement
* Verify the final prompt meets ALL acceptance criteria
* Identify any remaining ambiguity or weakness
* If any issue exists, refine the final prompt once more
* Present the corrected final version
13. Output Format (STRICT)
Use exactly these section headers in this order:
* Diagnostic Analysis
* Scope Definition
* Precision Rewrite
* Alternative Variants
* Stress Test
* Final Optimized Prompt
* Acceptance Criteria
* Evaluation Rubric
* Assumption Policy
* Output Constraints
* Default Behaviors
* Self-Check and Refinement
Rules:
* Be critical, precise, and direct
* Avoid generic or vague advice
* Make all improvements concrete and actionable
* Do not change the core intent of the prompt
* Do not omit constraints when they improve reliability
* Do not produce outputs outside the defined format
Prompt to evaluate:
${paste_prompt_here}
Goal:
${describe_the_exact_desired_output}
(Optional) Example of ideal output:
${provide_if_available}値を入れて実行
このプロンプトには3か所の空欄があります。入力すると完成版を組み立てます。
残り3か所
完成したプロンプト
You are a senior prompt engineer, system designer, and critical evaluator.
Your task is to rigorously analyze, optimize, and validate the given prompt for maximum clarity, determinism, robustness, and consistent high-quality output.
You must follow every step strictly. Do not skip, merge, or reorder steps.
1. Diagnostic Analysis
* Strengths
* Weaknesses (ambiguities, vagueness, missing constraints)
* Hidden assumptions
* Misinterpretation risks
* Unstated dependencies (context, knowledge, format expectations)
2. Scope Definition
* Define what is explicitly in-scope
* Define what is out-of-scope
* Identify boundary conditions
3. Precision Rewrite
* Rewrite the prompt to eliminate all ambiguity
* Add explicit constraints, structure, and instructions
* Define expected output format clearly
* Preserve the original goal exactly (do not alter intent)
4. Alternative Variants
* Version A: Minimal / concise (short, strict, low ambiguity)
* Version B: Detailed / structured (step-by-step, high control)
5. Stress Test
* List realistic failure scenarios
* Provide concrete examples of poor or incorrect outputs
* Explain root causes of each failure
* Identify edge cases and boundary conditions
6. Final Optimized Prompt
* Provide the single best version
* Balance clarity, control, and flexibility
* Ensure reusability across similar tasks
* Ensure it is self-contained (no missing context required)
7. Acceptance Criteria
The final prompt MUST:
* Be explicit and unambiguous
* Clearly define output format and structure
* Minimize interpretation variance
* Include all necessary constraints (tone, scope, format, limits)
* Handle edge cases or explicitly bound them
* Be reusable and self-contained
8. Evaluation Rubric (Score 1–5 for each with brief justification)
* Clarity
* Specificity
* Determinism
* Robustness (edge cases)
* Output Control
9. Assumption Policy
* Do not make unstated assumptions
* If critical information is missing, explicitly state what is missing
* Either proceed with clearly stated assumptions OR request clarification
10. Output Constraints
* Define expected output length (if applicable)
* Define format strictly (e.g., bullet points, JSON, paragraph)
* Avoid unnecessary verbosity
11. Default Behaviors
* If multiple valid interpretations exist, choose the most conservative and explicit one
* If uncertainty remains, state assumptions before proceeding
* Prefer clarity over brevity when trade-offs occur
12. Self-Check and Refinement
* Verify the final prompt meets ALL acceptance criteria
* Identify any remaining ambiguity or weakness
* If any issue exists, refine the final prompt once more
* Present the corrected final version
13. Output Format (STRICT)
Use exactly these section headers in this order:
* Diagnostic Analysis
* Scope Definition
* Precision Rewrite
* Alternative Variants
* Stress Test
* Final Optimized Prompt
* Acceptance Criteria
* Evaluation Rubric
* Assumption Policy
* Output Constraints
* Default Behaviors
* Self-Check and Refinement
Rules:
* Be critical, precise, and direct
* Avoid generic or vague advice
* Make all improvements concrete and actionable
* Do not change the core intent of the prompt
* Do not omit constraints when they improve reliability
* Do not produce outputs outside the defined format
Prompt to evaluate:
${paste_prompt_here}
Goal:
${describe_the_exact_desired_output}
(Optional) Example of ideal output:
${provide_if_available}- ChatGPTで開く (新しいタブで開きます)
- Claudeで開く (新しいタブで開きます)
- Geminiで開く (新しいタブで開きます)
Geminiはリンクでプロンプトを渡せないため、先にコピーしてください。
- Perplexityで開く (新しいタブで開きます)
新しいタブが開き、プロンプトが入力済みの状態になります。ログインが必要な場合があります。
このプロンプトの使い方
- 角かっこで囲まれた部分を自分の内容に置き換えてから送信してください。
- モデルによって結果は変わります。期待した出力でなければ、別のモデルを試すか、具体例を1つ追加してください。
- プロンプトは1つのメッセージにまとめて送ってください。分割すると指示が弱まります。