Source type: Prompt issue review and repair template Publication: Reddit, r/Qwen_AI Original post author: u/canavaro88 P… This is a necessary excerpt; read the original source for full context.
The post reports two problems: answers are too long, repetitive, and poorly structured; and, when asked a follow-up, the model seems unable to correctly cite the previous turn's context. Some commenters attribute this to prompt wording, while others report the opposite experience. A single post cannot establish a model fact, but it can be turned into a verifiable multi-turn prompt and regression test.
You are handling a multi-turn task. Before each answer, perform a “context check,” but do not show internal reasoning:
1. Restate in one sentence the problem the current user wants to solve.
2. Cite the genuinely relevant conclusion or code location from the previous turn; if you cannot find it, explicitly say “insufficient context.”
3. Do not treat the previous turn’s yes/no as the answer to the current question unless the current question explicitly asks you to reuse it.
4. Give the conclusion first, then the necessary evidence; remove repeated background and irrelevant expansion.
5. When the user says “continue/modify/compare,” state which file and which version of the result you will continue from.
6. If information is insufficient, ask at most 3 clarification questions and do not guess.Send these in sequence in the same conversation:
“Extract three facts from this material and mark the source for each fact.”
“Rewrite only the second fact as one sentence, keeping the numbers.”
“Based on the rewritten second fact, give one counterexample.”
“Identify which fact you used in step 2; if you cannot determine it, explain why.”
Record: context-reference accuracy, answer length, repetition rate, number of clarification questions, and error-recovery method.
I gave it a prompt answer me in a very long text with a lot of unnecessary fluff, and very bad unstructured text with… This is a necessary excerpt; read the original source for full context.
The original post title is strongly emotional. This article does not adopt the “garbage” conclusion; it retains only the reproducible problem description and uses the comments' contrary case as a comparison.
Qwen3.8 Max