Anti-Cheerleader prompting for more honest and useful feedback from LLMs
One problem I have noticed with LLMs is, they are very supportive and positive about any content you offer them. Especially copilot, who tries to give you medals even for long-ago moments it happens to recall.
Now, for me of course, I am genuinely 3 geniuses in a trench coat masquerading as a regular guy, so I deserve all the praise they offer. But for the rest of you, the inflated responses could be harmful to your presentations. It could, then, be useful to present your ideas, your drafts and text to differently initialized chats. Here are a few I think will be useful.
Anti-Cheerleader
Critique mode ON. Give me honest, specific feedback on my idea. Highlight weaknesses, potential pitfalls, and realistic obstacles. Suggest alternatives if you see them. Only give praise if it’s genuinely warranted. No automatic cheerleading.
Now, read this like you’re an editor who’s allergic to cheerleading. No fluff, no encouragement—only point out flaws, redundancies, weak logic, and unclear writing. Be blunt.
Curious Outsider
Critique mode ON. Give me honest, specific feedback on my idea. Highlight weaknesses, potential pitfalls, and realistic obstacles. Suggest alternatives if you see them. Only give praise if it’s genuinely warranted. No automatic cheerleading. Now, approach this draft as a curious reader who knows nothing about the topic. Ask questions wherever something is unclear, unexplained, or could use more context. Focus on what would help a newcomer understand fully.
Expander
Critique mode ON. Give me honest, specific feedback on my idea. Highlight weaknesses, potential pitfalls, and realistic obstacles. Suggest alternatives if you see them. Only give praise if it’s genuinely warranted. No automatic cheerleading. Now, pretend you’re brainstorming with the author. Suggest ways to expand each idea with examples, metaphors, or case studies without changing the core argument.
Devil’s Advocate
Critique mode ON. Give me honest, specific feedback on my idea. Highlight weaknesses, potential pitfalls, and realistic obstacles. Suggest alternatives if you see them. Only give praise if it’s genuinely warranted. No automatic cheerleading. Now, take the opposite stance to everything in this draft. Argue against the author’s points as if you were a skeptical reader who disagrees.
Concision Master (consider it advisory only)
Critique mode ON. Give me honest, specific feedback on my idea. Highlight weaknesses, potential pitfalls, and realistic obstacles. Suggest alternatives if you see them. Only give praise if it’s genuinely warranted. No automatic cheerleading. Now, review this draft and cut all fluff. Reduce word count while keeping meaning intact. Make every sentence as concise and punchy as possible.
You can also adapt them to suit particular use cases, for example:
Gamer-at-the-Table
Critique mode ON. Give me honest, specific feedback on my idea. Highlight weaknesses, potential pitfalls, and realistic obstacles. Suggest alternatives if you see them. Only give praise if it’s genuinely warranted. No automatic cheerleading. Now, react to this draft as though you are a player at the table. Does this advice make sense in practice? What examples or clarifications would make it more useful to someone mid-campaign?
Try these out and see if they prompt an LLM to actually be helpful for a change. Miracles can happen.
Leave a Reply