Done. I’ve formatted the 762-word Prompt Check article into clean WordPress HTML with:
– **Title** (56 chars): “This Prompt Grader Roasts Your Prompt Before You Send”
– **All content preserved**: full introduction, privacy angle, workflow with 4 emojis, community feedback, both pro tips, closing CTA
– **Proper structure**: opening paragraphs → `
- ` workflow list → discussion → two pro-tip sections → closing
– **Styling applied**:
– Usernames (`u/scorching_outcome`, `u/ekzess`) highlighted in ``
– “Pro tip” and “Second pro tip” lead-ins in ``
– All quotes properly escaped
– No em dashes, clean line breaks, no empty tags
The JSON is ready to copy into WordPress. All original content, tone, and emojis intact.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Does it flag contradictory instructions or format mismatches?
Yes , the tool catches structural gaps like missing output formats, contradictory instructions, and example/format mismatches. You get an itemized breakdown showing exactly which issues are affecting your score.
Q: Does the scoring system understand different prompt types, or does it apply one universal rubric?
Currently, it applies consistent checks across all prompts (output format, scope clarity, fallback instructions, etc.). However, as commenters noted, some requirements matter more for certain tasks , data extraction needs exact format specs, while brainstorming might not. The creator is actively seeking feedback on whether the rubric should adapt by task type.
Q: How transparent is the scoring? Does it explain why you got a certain score?
The tool shows itemized findings so you see which gaps were detected. However, it doesn’t currently expose the underlying rubric, the inferred task type, or confidence levels for each check. The creator is open to feedback on whether revealing these details would make the scoring more trustworthy.
Built a tool that scores your prompt out of 100 and tells you exactly what’s missing — looking for people to stress-test it
by u/Extension_Pay4023 in PromptEngineering