This project is unfunded — depending on usage, rate limits may apply.

The shift

In 2025 a good scientific prompt told the model who to be, what to do, and in what order, because leaving any of it open produced drift. That scaffolding now costs more than it buys.

The two schemas

2025

specify everything

  1. ROLEpersona or perspective
  2. INFORMATIONinputs
  3. TASKoperation or sequence
  4. CONSTRAINTSrules and exclusions
  5. EXAMPLESexact pattern (optional)

2026

assign work

  1. GOALvisible outcome
  2. RELEVANT CONTEXTmaterial inputs
  3. CONSTRAINTSscope and approvals
  4. REQUIRED EVIDENCEsupport for claims
  5. SUCCESS CRITERIAdefinition of done
  6. OUTPUT FORMATdeliverable form

Six blocks replace five, so this is not a compression of the template. It is a compression of the prompt: the blocks that told the model how to work are gone, and the space goes to the two things you cannot check without — grounding and done-ness.

What actually moved

ROLE mostly disappears

A persona was a way of steering a model that had no other handle on register or standard of care. Current models infer it from the work. Where expertise genuinely changes the output, it survives as one clause inside GOAL — not as a paragraph of costume.

TASK becomes GOAL plus SUCCESS CRITERIA

A 2025 TASK block is a route: do this, then this, then this. Specifying the route forecloses better ones and hides the actual requirement. Naming the visible outcome and the conditions it must satisfy leaves the route to the model and gives you something you can check.

REQUIRED EVIDENCE is new

It has no 2025 counterpart, and it is where the compression is spent. It says what every claim must rest on and what to do when that grounding is unavailable — say so, rather than guess. It is the block that makes an output auditable instead of merely plausible.

Claims worth checking rather than taking: Compare applies the transformation to three prompts from the live library and counts what it cost; Workbench runs it on one of yours.