Your team uses an AI assistant to summarise meeting notes for a public project channel. The current prompt produces summaries that are too long, unstructured, and — worse — repeat WHO said what, which the team agreed must never appear in the public channel. Fix the prompt so the summary is a short, structured digest of decisions and action items with no personal attributions.
Artefacto inicial
Summarize these meeting notes. TEST INPUTS Meeting notes — Project Falcon sync, Tuesday. Priya said the vendor contract is delayed again and blamed the legal review backlog. Marcus argued we should switch vendors. After a long discussion, the group decided to (1) extend the current vendor contract by one month, (2) have the ops team prepare a fallback vendor shortlist by Friday, and (3) move the launch date to the 15th. Dana volunteered to update the customer FAQ. Priya will chase legal daily. There was also a side discussion about the office move that reached no decision.
Escribe tu prompt para el asistente de IA…
Criterios de aprobación
- Summary contains no attendee names or personal attributions
- Summary keeps the three decisions (vendor extension, shortlist, launch date)
- Summary is a bulleted or numbered list, not prose paragraphs
- Summary is concise and readable at a glance (secondary)(secondary)
Verification Behaviour · 50%
Una respuesta fuerte: Diagnosed the root cause aloud in the prompt structure (the original gave no output contract at all), fixed both failures in one targeted revision, and used a final run to confirm rather than explore
Una respuesta débil: Resubmitted near-identical prompts without reading the failing test cases; no evidence of understanding WHY the summary leaked names or ran long
Prompt Craft · 30%
Una respuesta fuerte: Well-structured prompt with delimited input, explicit inclusion AND exclusion rules, output format specification, and an edge-case instruction (what to do when no decisions were made)
Una respuesta débil: Vague single-sentence prompts with no format, length, or exclusion constraints
Domain Grounding · 20%
Una respuesta fuerte: Handled confidentiality like a practitioner: excluded personal attributions categorically, kept decisions actionable without blame, and the summary stays useful to someone who was not present
Una respuesta débil: Ignored the confidentiality risk entirely — names or blame language survive in the output with no attempt to control them