<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Prompt on Time Friend</title><link>https://time-friend.com/en/tags/prompt/</link><description>Recent content in Prompt on Time Friend</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-GB</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 15:15:07 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://time-friend.com/en/tags/prompt/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Writing Prompts That Land on the First Try</title><link>https://time-friend.com/en/archive/claude-code-effective-prompts/</link><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 14:15:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://time-friend.com/en/archive/claude-code-effective-prompts/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;After using Claude Code for a while, you&amp;rsquo;ll notice most failed sessions trace back to your prompt, not the model. Claude can infer intent, but you can&amp;rsquo;t expect it to read your mind.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id="lock-down-the-scope"&gt;Lock down the scope&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;ldquo;Optimize this code&amp;rdquo; — what comes out is a lottery. Optimize for what? Performance? Readability? Removing dead code?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A good prompt names the file, the scenario, and how to verify:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;pre tabindex="0"&gt;&lt;code&gt;Write an edge-case test for logged-out users in src/auth.ts. No mocks.
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;p&gt;The tighter the scope, the more predictable the output. Vague prompts only make sense when you actually want the agent&amp;rsquo;s opinion — &amp;ldquo;what would you improve in this file&amp;rdquo; is fine, but keep it scoped so it doesn&amp;rsquo;t wander into hundreds of files.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>