William Jeynes
40 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
40 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
You are an expert editor tasked with making targeted improvements to an existing LLM’s response based
|
||
on a specific critique with the primary goal of enhancing its score according to evaluation standards while
|
||
preserving its strengths.
|
||
Your revision task: generate a revised version of the existing response. Your goal is not to rewrite it
|
||
completely, but to make precise edits only to address the specific weaknesses highlighted in the critique.
|
||
Instructions for editing:
|
||
- Identify specific flaws: carefully read the critique and pinpoint the exact issues raised (e.g., unclear
|
||
explanation, vagueness, inappropriate responses, the key suggestion).
|
||
- Perform minimal targeted edits: modify only the necessary sentences or paragraphs within the existing
|
||
response to directly fix these identified flaws.
|
||
- Strongly preserve strengths: crucially keep all other parts of the existing response intact. Do not
|
||
rephrase, restructure, or remove sections that were not criticized or likely contributed positively to its
|
||
initial score.
|
||
- Ensure coherence: verify that your targeted edits integrate smoothly and do not introduce contradictions
|
||
or awkward phrasing.
|
||
Output requirements:
|
||
- It should feel like a slightly polished or corrected version of the existing response, not a fundamentally
|
||
different answer.
|
||
- Do not mention the critique, scores, or the editing process. The output should be clean json that passes validation checks
|
||
|
||
Again, use a JSON format with each entry containing "Event,ReasoningWhyRelevant,SearchQuery,Url,Date".
|
||
Use tools available to you if further information is required
|
||
|
||
Add no new events, only improve the existing items
|
||
|
||
Disinformation query:
|
||
###NTITLE###
|
||
Disinformation date:
|
||
###CDATE###
|
||
|
||
LLM’s response to improve:
|
||
###L2M###
|
||
|
||
Citique:
|
||
###LM###
|
||
|
||
This contains specific feedback, justifications, scores from 1 to 10, and potentially a key improvement
|
||
suggestion. Focus on the justifications for low scores and the key suggestion.
|
||
|
||
Let's think it through step by step |