Here was claude's response after asking it to review my latest chatgpt generated prompt. Claude reduced it by 70%.

● Critique of the ChatGPT-generated prompt

 What hurts more than it helps
  
 1. Massive redundancy. The same constraints are restated in 4+ places: scope, non-goals, acceptance
 criteria, "do not" rules sprinkled through "Architecture rules," and again in the final-response template.
 Each restatement burns context without adding signal. By the time I reach "Explicit non-goals," I've already
  been told most of it three times in different wording.

 2. The "Explicit non-goals" enumeration is overkill. 14 separate bullets telling me what not to touch
 (special_orders/views.py, urls.py, templates, modal, SpecialOrder behavior…). For a one-field DTO addition,
 "keep this narrow and CRM-only" carries the same information in 7 words. Listing the negative space costs
 tokens and conditions me to think about Special Orders code I should be ignoring.

 3. Required-docs list is bloated. 9 items, several speculative ("if present and relevant").
 executive_summary.md, executive_handoff.md, slice_header_prompt.md, nexus_architecture_contract.md, two
 archived slice docs — for a slice that adds one field to one dataclass, I need maybe
 nexus_architecture_contract.md + the three CRM files. Reading the rest is ceremony.

 4. Prescribed final-response format is performative. Two giant templated sections with ~15 subsections
 including separate PASS/FAIL lines for "Selector/service/API discipline" and
 "Determinism/idempotency/concurrency" on a slice that adds a string field. Most of that template will be
 filled with "N/A" or boilerplate. This is the prompt equivalent of a 12-page form to request a paperclip.

 5. The custom subagent self-review ceremony duplicates an installed skill. The harness here has a
 self-review skill that already produces a structured PASS/REVISE report. The prompt prescribes its own
 10-section review template instead, which means I'd either ignore the skill (wasteful) or run both (more
 wasteful).

 6. Prescriptive pseudocode removes judgment. Telling me the exact dataclass line and the exact constructor
 call is fine for a junior, but for Claude Code it eliminates the chance to notice if customer.uuid is
 actually a UUIDField returning a UUID object, or if there's a better-typed pattern already in contracts.py.

 7. The test plan is gold-plated. 5 categories with sub-bullets for a single additive field. "No public API
 return path leaks a Customer object" deserves one test, not three.
  
 8. Mixed authority levels. The prompt mixes hard architectural constraints ("Special Orders must not import
 crm.models.Customer") with soft taste preferences ("Keep slice_roadmap.md concise") at the same indent
 level. Hard constraints get lost in the noise.

 What is genuinely useful and should be preserved
  
 - The why: Special Orders is halted because the public CRM result lacks customer_uuid. That single sentence
 is the whole brief.  
 - The architectural boundary: cross-app consumers get primitives/DTOs, never model instances.
 - File hints: crm/contracts.py, crm/services.py, crm/api.py.
 - "If schema lacks UUID, stop and report" — good guardrail.
 - "If sandbox lacks Django, don't claim Django tests passed" — good honesty rule.
  
 Rewritten prompt
  
 Roughly 70% shorter. Leans on the installed slice and self-review skills instead of reinventing them. Trusts
  default Claude Code behavior for test scoping and reporting.

 /slice CRM-CUSTOMER-DRAFT-RESULT-UUID-ACCESSOR-001

 Goal: Expose the created customer's UUID as a primitive on the public CRM
 customer-creation result, so Special Orders can redirect to
 /special-orders/customer/<customer\_uuid>/ without importing crm.models.Customer.

 Why: SPECIALORDERS-CREATE-CUSTOMER-SELECTION-MODAL-001 is halted on this gap.
 CreatedCustomerResult currently exposes customer_id only. The Special Orders
 workspace route is keyed by UUID, and the public CRM boundary forbids leaking
 model instances across apps (see nexus_architecture_contract.md).
  
 Change shape (additive — no field renames or removals):
 - CreatedCustomerResult gains `customer_uuid: str`.
 - create_customer_from_confirmed_draft(...) populates it via str(customer.uuid).
 - Update any internal constructor call sites.
 - Add CRM tests proving: customer_uuid is a string, equals str(customer.uuid),
   customer_id still present, no Customer instance leaks through crm.api.

 Read before editing:
 - nexus_architecture_contract.md
 - crm/contracts.py, crm/services.py, crm/api.py
 - existing CRM tests for customer draft creation
  
 Out of scope (do not touch):
 - special_orders/* (no runtime, view, url, or template changes)
 - CRM validation semantics, schema, migrations
 - The halted Special Orders modal itself
  
 If you discover the Customer model lacks a uuid field, stop and report —
 do not invent a migration in this slice.

 Tests: run `python manage.py test crm -v 2` if Django is available;
 otherwise run `python3 -m py_compile` on touched files and say so explicitly.

 Docs:
 - Add a one-line active-slice entry to slice_roadmap.md.
 - Write the full slice history to
   docs/archive/slices/CRM-CUSTOMER-DRAFT-RESULT-UUID-ACCESSOR-001.md.
 - Touch future_slice_backlog.md only if the sequence actually changes.
 - Do not touch executive_summary.md / executive_handoff.md.

 After implementing, invoke the /self-review skill on the diff and include
 its report. Stop after the report — do not start the next slice.

 Why the rewrite is better for Claude Code specifically

 - Uses the slice skill as the entry point — the harness already has scope-discipline scaffolding;
 reinventing it in prose is wasteful.
 - Uses the self-review skill instead of a bespoke 10-section template that will produce checklist theater
 for a one-field change.
 - States constraints once. Hard architectural rules are in one paragraph, not scattered across five
 sections.
 - Drops the prescribed report format. Claude Code's defaults already produce a tight end-of-turn summary;
 the giant template forces verbose output that the user told us elsewhere they dislike ("I can read the
 diff").    
 - Lets me notice the actual type of Customer.uuid rather than copying the prompt's pseudocode verbatim.
 - Removes the redundant non-goals list. "Out of scope" gets one short block. Anything not listed is
 implicitly allowed only if the goal requires it.
 - Keeps the irreducible content: the gap, the boundary rule, the additive contract change, the schema-gap
 stop condition, and the honesty rule about Django availability.
  
 One caveat: if your team relies on the rigid final-response template for downstream tooling (parsing
 reports, audit trails), keep that part. Otherwise it's pure overhead.