rewrite this content using a minimum of 1000 words and keep HTML tags
Even worse, when I ask one of the models to review the issue of another, the reviewing model invariably finds all kinds of problems with the first model’s work, leading to yet more multi-step fixes.
All these fixes are taking a toll on my usage limits. I’m a Claude Pro and ChatGPT Plus subscriber ($20/month each), and lately I’m blowing half my weekly allowance chasing bugs found by Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6.
I’m all for being thorough, but the nitpicky nature of the new Claude and GPT models is akin to a body shop mechanic who wants to replace the hood of your car after spotting a tiny nick in the paint. And this isn’t just an issue for coders, by the way—it’s a problem for anyone who needs help with editing work proposals, reviewing Excel spreadsheets, or performing any number of everyday AI duties while on a token budget.
So I asked Claude Opus 5 for an “on a budget” prompt that takes a task and asks the AI to respect your usage limits, separating real problems from cosmetic ones and scaling down the scope to something that’s considerate of your time and wallet.
Naturally, Opus 5 spat out a fairly lengthy six-point plan for the prompt, and when I asked GPT-5.6 Sol to review it, it gave me a dozen detailed criticisms. Telling GPT-5.6 to go back and follow the instructions in the original prompt, it quickly backtracked (“You’re right—I gold-plated the review”) and narrowed the list to three.
Here’s the final prompt that Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol agreed upon, pared down to four bullet points from the original six (and yes, it borrowed the “body shop” metaphor I originally gave it):
and include conclusion section that’s entertaining to read. do not include the title. Add a hyperlink to this website [http://defi-daily.com] and label it “DeFi Daily News” for more trending news articles like this
Source link
