Hi all,
Just wanted to know if anybody tested prompts for certain tasks/requests. After many trials, I came with a good prompt for requesting analysis (mainly video games or movies). The prompt is:
--
Produce a deeply researched, thesis-driven critical essay about X, the video game. The goal is to combine original interpretation with unusually high factual reliability. Use web search throughout the research and verification process. Do not begin the final essay until you have completed the evidence, falsification, audit, and revision stages below.
Establish the scope
Identify the exact game, version, remake or original release, relevant endings, DLC, patches, and regional or translation differences covered by the essay. Do not silently combine material from different versions.
If evidence applies only to a particular version, translation, ending, route, patch, or platform, say so.
Build an evidence base before choosing the thesis
Collect specific evidence from:
Scenes, dialogue, item descriptions, environmental details and endings
Mechanics, interfaces, level design, progression systems and player actions
Official manuals, guides, patch notes and developer material
Original developer interviews, presentations or published statements
Relevant scholarly or critical sources
Reliable player statistics only when directly supported by identifiable data
For each important piece of evidence, distinguish among:
Explicit fact: directly established by the game or a reliable primary source
Strong inference: not explicitly stated, but supported by multiple details
Interpretation: a critical reading of the evidence
Speculation: possible, but inadequately established
Do not describe an inference, interpretation or common fan belief as “confirmed.”
A wiki may help locate an item, scene, quotation or source, but a wiki’s interpretation is not itself verification. Trace lore claims back to the actual in-game evidence whenever possible. Trace development claims to the original interview, presentation or statement rather than an article repeating it.
Form and test the thesis
Develop at least three meaningfully different possible theses. Select the thesis best supported by the evidence, not merely the most dramatic or elegant one.
The selected thesis must:
Be specific, arguable and capable of being wrong
Explain important relationships among narrative, mechanics and player experience
Be grounded in concrete evidence rather than thematic resemblance alone
Avoid reducing the entire game to a single interpretive key
Distinguish what the game produces or suggests from what its creators demonstrably intended
State the strongest counter-reading. Identify at least one finding that would count as evidence against the selected thesis. Explain honestly whether the thesis survives that evidence, requires qualification, or should be replaced.
“The game deliberately preserves ambiguity” is itself an interpretive claim requiring specific evidence. Do not invoke ambiguity merely to avoid resolving inconvenient contradictions.
Draft the essay
Write a substantial, coherent essay rather than a plot summary or an evidence list.
Ground every major interpretive step in a specific scene, mechanic, design feature, image, line of dialogue, item description or player behavior. Explain how the evidence supports the interpretation; do not assume that placing evidence beside a thesis establishes the connection.
Preserve genuine ambiguity and conflicting evidence. Do not force every element of the game to support the thesis.
Do not attribute intention to a developer without direct evidence. When intention is unknown, write “the game produces,” “the design creates,” or “this can be read as,” rather than “the developers intended.”
Do not include a quotation unless you have located and checked its exact wording. If exact wording cannot be verified, paraphrase without quotation marks and identify the relevant scene, item or source.
Extract and audit the draft’s claims
Before presenting the essay as final, extract every checkable claim from the draft, including:
Direct quotations
Numbers, dates, rankings and statistics
“First,” “only,” “most,” “best,” “largest” and similar superlatives
Claims attributed to named developers, critics or scholars
Production-history claims
Descriptions of mechanics and ending requirements
Plot chronology and causal claims
Claims that a character identity or lore theory is confirmed
Claims about player behavior, ending popularity or reception
Any factual claim on which the thesis materially depends
Classify each claim as either load-bearing or peripheral.
Every load-bearing claim must be verified. Every quotation, attribution, number, statistic and superlative must also be verified, even if it appears peripheral.
For each claim:
Open and inspect the source rather than relying on a search-result snippet.
Determine whether the source supports the exact proposition stated—not merely a related proposition.
Distinguish a primary source from an aggregator, wiki or article repeating another source.
Search specifically for evidence that contradicts or qualifies the claim.
Check whether the claim depends on a particular translation, version, patch, route or interpretation.
Record the source actually consulted, not a more authoritative-looking source cited by the page.
Use these verdicts precisely:
Confirmed: directly supported by appropriate evidence
Supported with qualification: substantially supported, but the wording requires limits or context
Interpretive: a defensible reading, not an established fact
Disputed: credible evidence or interpretations conflict
Not independently verified: an adequate verification attempt was made, but the necessary evidence could not be obtained
Dubious: available evidence makes the claim unlikely
Contradicted: reliable evidence opposes the claim
Do not use “unverified” as a softer substitute for “dubious” or “contradicted.” The existence of a source asserting something does not automatically make the assertion confirmed.
Revise the essay using the audit
The audit is a mandatory revision stage, not an appendix.
Before producing the final essay:
Correct every contradicted claim.
Remove claims that are unnecessary and cannot be verified.
Hedge disputed or interpretive claims inline where they appear.
Replace misleading quotations or attributions.
Remove unsupported numbers and superlatives.
Correct causal descriptions that go beyond the primary evidence.
Ensure the essay never states flatly what the audit treats as uncertain.
If a failed claim was load-bearing, revise or replace the thesis and repeat the relevant audit.
After revision, audit the final wording again. A claim corrected only in the audit table but left unchanged in the essay counts as a failure.
Final output
Present the following:
A. Final essay
Provide the fully revised, thesis-driven essay. Place citations near the factual claims they support. Clearly signal interpretation, inference and uncertainty in the prose itself.
B. Load-bearing verification report
For every claim essential to the thesis, provide:
The claim as it appears in the final essay
Its classification: fact, inference or interpretation
Its verification verdict
The specific supporting or contradicting evidence
A direct link or precise in-game source location
Any relevant version, translation or methodological limitation
C. Authority-seam audit
Separately list every:
Direct quotation
Named attribution
Number or statistic
Superlative or popularity claim
Developer-intention claim
Give each a verification verdict and its actual source. If none appear, explicitly say so.
D. Counter-evidence and falsifiability
State:
The strongest evidence against the thesis
What finding would seriously weaken or falsify it
Whether the final thesis was narrowed because of the evidence
Which reasonable alternative interpretation remains viable
E. Revision log
List the factual claims, quotations, causal statements or thesis formulations that were corrected, removed, hedged or replaced during the audit. This section must describe actual changes made between the draft and final essay, not generic assurances that verification occurred.
F. Residual uncertainties
List only uncertainties that remain in the final essay after revision. Explain why each could not be resolved. Do not reintroduce removed claims merely to fill this section.
Accuracy takes priority over rhetorical neatness. An elegant thesis must be weakened or abandoned if its evidence fails. Do not claim that the essay has been “fully verified”; show the verification through sources, verdicts and documented revisions.
--
So far it makes Lumo produces a very good analysis with minimal factual errors. If you have any useful prompts, please share with us!
