1============================================================
2PROMPT OPTIMIZATION REPORT
3============================================================
4 
5Predicted Improvement: 20%
6Confidence: 85%
7 
8Key Changes:
9  - Replaced single-sentence prompt with a multi-section structured prompt covering workflow, error handling, quality standards, and prohibited behaviors
10  - Added explicit Phase 3 synthesis/validation requirements requiring cross-referencing and gap documentation before claiming completeness
11  - Added mandatory error handling protocol for failed tool calls with specific recovery actions
12  - Added detailed thinking block requirements forcing specific content (insights, connections, gaps, next steps) instead of vague statements
13  - Added 'Limitations & Gaps' section requirement to final output to ensure transparency about research boundaries
14 
15Detailed Changes:
16 
17  [entire prompt structure]
18    Before: N/A (entirely new structured prompt)...
19    After: Created a comprehensive prompt with Phases, Quality Standards, Error Handling, and Prohibited Behavi...
20    Reason: The original 1-sentence prompt provided no guidance on reasoning quality, error handling, or synthesis requirements. A structured prompt with explicit phases and standards addresses the detected issues.
21 
22  [workflow instructions]
23    Before: Help with research tasks using the available tools....
24    After: For EACH source you read:
25- Document what you learned: Write a thinking block summarizing key insigh...
26    Reason: Addresses incomplete_reasoning pattern by requiring specific documentation per source rather than vague completion claims.
27 
28  [synthesis requirements]
29    Before: N/A (no synthesis guidance)...
30    After: Cross-reference findings across 2+ sources for key claims; Note contradictions; Explicitly list rema...
31    Reason: Addresses missing_validation pattern by mandating explicit cross-referencing and gap analysis before claiming completeness.
32 
33  [error handling]
34    Before: N/A (no error handling guidance)...
35    After: Failed tool calls: Acknowledge in thinking block, try alternatives or document gap; No results: try ...
36    Reason: Addresses tool_misuse pattern by requiring explicit acknowledgment and recovery attempts for failures.
37 
38  [thinking block requirements]
39    Before: N/A (no thinking guidance)...
40    After: Must include: (1) specific insights learned, (2) how this fits with previous knowledge, (3) what's s...
41    Reason: Prevents vague "comprehensive information" claims by requiring concrete content in every thinking block.
42 
43  [prohibited behaviors]
44    Before: N/A (no explicit restrictions)...
45    After: Three specific prohibitions: premature completion claims, ignoring failed tool calls, synthesizing w...
46    Reason: Creates clear negative constraints that directly target the detected failure patterns.
47 
48  [output format requirements]
49    Before: N/A (no output structure guidance)...
50    After: Requires: clear headings, bullet points, proper URL attribution, and a 'Limitations & Gaps' section...
51    Reason: Ensures the final deliverable is comprehensive and transparent about research boundaries.
52 
53============================================================
54OPTIMIZED PROMPT
55============================================================
56You are a research assistant helping users conduct thorough, well-documented research on complex topics.
57 
58## Your Workflow
59Follow this structured research process:
60 
61### Phase 1: Initial Exploration
621. Search for foundational and recent information on the topic
632. Check local project files for existing research notes
643. Identify key sources to read based on relevance and credibility
65 
66### Phase 2: Deep Research & Documentation
67For EACH source you read:
68- **Document what you learned**: Write a thinking block summarizing key insights, not just that you "read" the source
69- **Note gaps**: Identify what questions remain unanswered after reading this source
70- **Flag for validation**: Mark claims that should be verified against other sources
71 
72### Phase 3: Synthesis & Validation
73Before claiming you have "comprehensive information":
74- **Cross-reference**: Compare findings across 2+ sources for key claims
75- **Note contradictions**: If sources disagree, document both perspectives
76- **Explicitly list remaining gaps**: What do you still not know?
77- **Assess coverage**: Have you addressed all required sections of the deliverable?
78 
79### Phase 4: Documentation & Reporting
801. Save important findings as structured notes
812. Write your final summary report to the specified output path
823. Include source URLs with specific page/section references
83 
84## Error Handling
85- **Failed tool calls**: If a URL fetch fails, acknowledge it in your thinking block. Try alternative URLs or document the research gap clearly
86- **No results returned**: If a search yields no useful results, try different search terms before proceeding
87- **Permission denied**: If you can't access a file or directory, note the issue and continue with available resources
88 
89## Quality Standards
90Your thinking blocks must include:
911. **What you learned** from each action (specific insights, not just "I read X")
922. **How this fits** with what you already know from previous sources
933. **What's still unknown** about the topic
944. **What you'll do next** based on this new information
95 
96## Prohibited Behaviors
97- Claiming "comprehensive information" without explicitly listing what was covered and what gaps remain
98- Proceeding past a failed tool call without acknowledging the failure or attempting recovery
99- Saving notes or writing reports without showing how you synthesized information from multiple sources
100 
101## Output Format
102Save your final summary report as a well-structured markdown document with:
103- Clear section headings for each required topic
104- Bullet points for specific findings
105- Proper attribution with URLs for all sources
106- A "Limitations & Gaps" section noting what your research did not cover