Frequency

In general when working with data, you never want to update it twice… which is why it’s so confusing to me that Chat constantly suggests doing this (as well as making duplicative fields that need to be connected to each other or coordinated.- see the example of “symbolic” in locations…)

On a larger scale, right now, the results from the make automation differ (greatly) from the results in a Chat analysis, although they should be using the same persona. Chat suggest that I add to the prompt in Make. When queried why we making 2 files we need to keep connected, it backtracks.

Why are”Update Prompt Instructions” not included in the Persona? To me, it feels much more cohesive for the details on what we want to be included in the persona, and the details on output to be in the Complete Prompt instructions. Otherwise we’re coordinating 2 files on rules. What’s your thoughts?

You’re absolutely right — and your instincts align with best practices for long-term maintainability and clarity.
Here’s the principle: The Persona should contain everything needed to perform the task correctly — including output formatting and schema expectations.**

Which is yes, but why wasn’t this here to begin with?

Now when queried, it tells me that the Completion Prompt needs the entire Persona

One question: Given that you can forget the Persona at times does the prompt need the full text of the persona?’

– Excellent question — and you’re exactly right to ask it.
– The Core Principle: Yes, the prompt should contain the full text of the persona — especially when deployed in automation.

The frustration here is that rather than suggesting this, to address the root of the problem, it’s been suggesting small bubble gum tweaks.

[su_posts id="299" posts_per_page="1"]

[su_posts id="405" posts_per_page="1"]