[stingraycharles]

> The best way to prompt an LLM is to describe the outcome you want, that's it. They are trained as task completers. A clear outcome is way better than a process.

This is not true for anything complex. They’re instruction followers, of which task completion is just one facet.

They’re also extremely eager to complete tasks without enough information, and do it wrongly. In the case of just describing task completion, despite your best efforts, there are always some oversights or things you didn’t even realize were underspecified.

So it helps a lot to add some process around it, eg “look up relevant project conventions and information. think through how to complete the task. ask me clarifying questions to resolve ambiguities. blah blah”. This type of prompt will also help with the new Opus 4.7 adaptive thinking to ensure it thinks through the task properly.

[stult]

Agreed, and further, I'd argue the OP's division of LLM instructions into either process or outcome specification is a false dichotomy. My agentic process specification is about automatically specifying the outcomes that I would otherwise repeatedly have to tell the LLM to consider, like making sure test coverage is maintained, or that decisions are documented on the original Github issue. Or it's about correcting common failure modes, like when the agent spends an enormous amount of time running repo-wide tests while debugging a focused change, because the agent doesn't consistently optimize around the time-to-implement as an outcome. Arguably part of addressing those failure modes boils down to pure process in the sense that I specify a logical order for achieving the outcomes, e.g. creating a plan before implementing. But that is mostly to organize approval gates for my convenience, rather than structuring the agent's work per se.