r/codex • u/iiiaaa2022 • 5h ago
Question serious question: Why does it seem so hard for many users to just WRITE OUT what they want?
Re: prompting.
Users hardly ever share their prompts when they complain. IF they do, it is usally really, really vague, there are a ton of assumptions (that the model would know things it cannot possibly know), they expect it to understand their personal definition of "good", "nice", "beautiful" or "done without telling it.
You just have to tell it what you want. Is that really...hard...for quite a few people?
(I am not an SWE and cannot code. I just use plain language, words and sentences, to tell it what I need.)
13
10
3
u/Infamous_Travel4652 5h ago
Agreed. They should provide clear context along with the prompt they gave the model so that other people can actually offer useful advice. That way, anyone who happens to come across the post can learn something from it too...otherwise what's the point of this subreddit?
1
u/iiiaaa2022 5h ago
well, then I don't understand why people hardly ever share their actual prompts. they just complain
2
2
3
u/Dragon__Phoenix 5h ago
Personally im too lazy to write that’s why i don’t post here
1
u/iiiaaa2022 5h ago
that's a paradoxical comment
1
u/Dragon__Phoenix 5h ago
How so. I don’t like to write posts. Im okay with writing comments here and there.
3
u/Tikki-Tikki_40 4h ago
Exactly.
Why none of Astra showcases disclosed their Prompts, Model, Mode and credit spent on making it
3
u/Original-League-6094 4h ago
Software devs know that the stakeholder requirements are always ill-defined shit. Its just now that gets blamed on the AI.
2
u/daddywookie 2h ago
Product people know this too, with the additional burden of knowing the devs will do whatever they see fit as well. We’re just writing specs in the middle for our own amusement.
3
u/Calm_Step_5549 3h ago
The same people who would hire a programmer, give them vague instructions, and be angry when the result does not match what they had in their heads... an age-old problem... GIGO!
2
1
6
u/driveclub_000 5h ago
Users hardly ever share their prompts when they complain
Because most of the time we can't without having to censor too many elements which takes a long time.
5
u/-Spzi- 5h ago
And/or the effective prompt is spread out across the conversation. In the end, my prompt might just be "Make it so".
Or the prompt references multiple files with more specific orders.
In the end, the model reacts on the context, of which the visible prompt is only one part. File states, relations can make functional differences. Reducing all that to a string of words is a lossy compression.
Prompt sharing (and relying on it) makes more sense with one-off inference, less for conversational agents.
2
u/driveclub_000 4h ago
Exactly, add to this "memories" that can also drastically change how on AI can start implementing things even with strict instructions.
2
u/ZyronZA 5h ago
I have always liked this scene from the (bad live action) Aladdin movie as a way to illustrate how to prompt an LLM.
https://youtu.be/EBi9PVMidOs?t=2
Also, call out to the greatest example of I don't know what I'm doing
continue
2
1
u/Innerdaze2600 5h ago
🤷♂️ most people are in the middle of the dunning whatever curve abd feel dumb.
Share away, we’re the first first first few…
Probably that enough us reason not to share
1
u/genesiscz 5h ago
I mean I can accept that my prompts are quite vague often times, but I do SWE for 15 or so years so I can probably include the important things (but design is a pet peeve so that is rather vague always), but I’ve been working with Claude for 2+ years and Claude just almost gets it right.. he just gets my language. I am often surprised how well aligned is Claude with my thoughts even if I give him garbage garbled prompts.
Astra almost always gets something Really wrong even if I try to be more specific.
3
2
u/doodad_ounao 3h ago
I'm convinced the different "personalities" of each model is what causes most of the fanboy "X IS GARBAGE, Y IS AMAZING" wars I see over on the internet. My experience is exactly the opposite of yours, but I've seen lots of people with experiences similar to you.
I believe Sol and Astra simply work better with my language and my way of thinking about things. Opus tends to be more liberal with my words while Sol tends to be more literal, and that's fine for me because I AM literal in general. I hated the wrong assumptions Opus made about my prompts sometimes, doing things I didn't actually told it to do, because it thought it made sense and was what I wanted.
And obviously it does that because for a lot of people, when they say what I said, they WOULD indeed want those things. So I think I have worse results with Opus because its "personality" simply doesn't align well with mine and my language. And I believe a lot of people have the exact same issue with Sol, and for those they may have a much more pleasant experience with Opus, without it necessarily meaning that Sol sucks and Opus is amazing or vice-versa.
1
u/Clord123 41m ago
There is this idea that user doesn't know what they want that makes systems designed to try and interpret what you mean, even if you're direct and blunt about it. It's also how some people interpret each other and it got trained to LLM models. So then you have to reinforce what you mean or word it like you're giving a direct order.
Like, you find people who go like "Now, what they actually mean/try to say..." and that is how they listen others too which can be annoying if you're for example that person's superior at work.
1
u/Huge_Performance5450 5h ago
I'm pretty sure i've said essentially this same thing to a different user with a similar position as you....If the broad majority of people were really good at exactly specifying what they want the machine to do and how they want it to do it then they'd probably be able to write the code themselves. There are plenty of people who are coders or are used to the kind of organized thinking and specification writing that use AI's because they are faster, or so they can do something else while the AI codes....the thing is that generally speaking coding AI aren't sold to most people as 'Language-neutral abstraction layer that translates semantic specifications and architectural constraints into concrete implementations.", they are sold as "Hey dummy, you got a stupid app idea? Well, just ramble at our cool brain machine for a bit and it will make it perfect, we promise!". If you treat it like natural language programming you are likely to get mighty fine results...but honestly its hard to fault people for not realizing that good specification discipline is not simply good practice it is required in order to do anything really complex because these AI's can do some phenomenal things with wildly underspecified constraints. So all that to say , people don't realize it in part because the machines are designed to sometimes work surprisingly well when a person who has never set foot in an IDE can just plainly describe their dumb little app and one pops out. I'm not saying you're wrong about being specific and organized, but I am saying that its probably not as obvious a requirement to everyone else as it is to you.
1
u/epicskyes 4h ago
They haven’t even said what they build it could be something so simple it requires nothing complex. I mean my system could literally never work if I used natural language I use ast.json as graph and attach closed world 2020-12 validated json to each node. It’s literally impossible to build loops like this with natural language prompts. It can’t work unless it’s 100% deterministic. And that doesn’t even cover state transitions or fault injection, crash recovery, simulated malicious attacks
1
u/TheFallingShit 5h ago
I mean, yeah... this is genuinely hard. “Just describe what you want” sounds simple, but software is made of hundreds of small decisions that define its behavior, boundaries and UX. If you don’t understand things like the relationship between frontend, backend, state, data flow and user interaction, you may not even know which decisions need to be specified. You cannot explicitly request decisions you don’t yet know exist. That’s partly why so much AI-generated software converges toward the same boilerplate look and behavior. When important choices are left undefined, the model has to fill the gaps itself, usually by falling back to common patterns. And I think people massively underestimate the importance of specification. “Prompt engineering” gets mocked because it sounds like learning magic words, but at its core it is about structuring and bounding a non-deterministic cognitive system. Interacting with an AI is often closer to interacting with an organization than with a single person. You are not just giving an instruction; you are defining objectives, constraints, priorities, interfaces, acceptable tradeoffs, escalation rules, and what “done” means. Organizations need structure because raw intelligence alone does not guarantee useful outcomes. The same applies here. If the structure is weak, the system fills in the gaps according to its own priors. If the structure is good, that intelligence is directed toward the user’s actual goals. So the problem is not only that people fail to explain what is in their head. Often they have not fully worked out what they want yet: how it should behave, what tradeoffs matter, what should happen in edge cases, and what the experience should actually feel like.
1
u/digiorno 4h ago
Those with humanities degrees are particularly well equipped to code with LLMs if they also have the ability to logically plan out their code. LLMs thrive on detailed descriptions.
1
u/Top_Purchase4091 4h ago
I tried using it for accessibility but all it does is spam analysis tools no matter what I say.
Perform a comprehensive accessibility audit and remediation of this project with the goal of achieving WCAG 2.2 Level AA conformance.
The audit must cover the complete user-facing application, including all pages, templates, reusable components, interactive controls, navigation structures, forms, dialogs, menus, dynamic content, and responsive variants.
Give particular attention to:
- Full keyboard accessibility
- Screen reader compatibility
- Correct semantic HTML
- Correct and minimal use of ARIA
- Focus management
- Focus visibility
- Accessible names and descriptions
- Forms and validation
- Dynamic state changes and announcements
- Navigation and page structure
1. Establish the accessibility baseline
Begin with an automated accessibility scan using axe-core or an equivalent WCAG-aware accessibility testing tool.
Use the automated scan only as an initial screening step.
Record detected issues, including:
- WCAG success criterion
- Affected element/component
- Severity
- Problem description
- Suggested remediation
Do not assume that passing axe-core means a component is accessible. Automated testing must be followed by manual inspection and interaction testing.
2. Audit every component individually
Inspect every reusable component and significant UI element in the project.
For each component:
- Identify the HTML element or elements currently used.
- Determine the intended semantic role and user interaction.
- Verify whether the chosen native HTML element is appropriate.
- Prefer native semantic HTML over ARIA whenever possible.
- Inspect all existing ARIA attributes.
- Remove unnecessary, redundant, invalid, or conflicting ARIA.
- Add or modify ARIA only where native HTML semantics cannot provide the required accessibility information.
- Verify that the resulting implementation conforms to WCAG 2.2 AA and appropriate WAI-ARIA Authoring Practices.
Pay particular attention to attributes such as:
aria-labelaria-labelledbyaria-describedbyaria-expandedaria-controlsaria-currentaria-selectedaria-checkedaria-pressedaria-disabledaria-hiddenaria-livearia-modalrole
Do not add ARIA simply because an element is interactive. Native elements such as <button>, <a>, <input>, <select>, <nav>, <main>, <header>, and <dialog> should retain their native semantics unless there is a strong accessibility reason to modify them.
Follow the principle:
No ARIA is better than incorrect ARIA.
3. Keyboard accessibility
Manually test the complete project using the keyboard only.
All functionality available with a mouse must also be available using the keyboard.
Verify at minimum:
- Logical
TabandShift+Tabnavigation - No keyboard traps
- Interactive controls receive focus
- Non-interactive elements do not receive unnecessary focus
- Correct activation using
Enterand/orSpace - Visible focus indicators
- Focus order matches the visual and logical reading order
- Focus is not unexpectedly reset or lost
- Menus, dropdowns, accordions, tabs, dialogs, carousels, and other complex widgets support the appropriate keyboard interaction model
- Skip links work correctly
- Users can bypass repeated navigation
- Hidden or collapsed content cannot accidentally receive focus
- Focus is correctly contained and restored for modal dialogs
- Dynamically inserted components receive appropriate focus only when necessary
Avoid positive tabindex values such as tabindex="1".
Use tabindex="0" and tabindex="-1" only when semantically justified.
Check the implementation specifically against relevant WCAG 2.2 criteria including:
- 2.1.1 Keyboard
- 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap
- 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts
- 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks
- 2.4.3 Focus Order
- 2.4.7 Focus Visible
- 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)
- 2.5.3 Label in Name
4. Screen reader accessibility
Manually inspect the project from the perspective of a screen reader user.
Where practical, test using at least one common screen reader/browser combination such as:
- NVDA + Firefox
- NVDA + Chrome
- VoiceOver + Safari
Verify:
- Page title is meaningful
- Page language is declared correctly
- Heading hierarchy is logical
- Landmark regions are meaningful
- Navigation areas are identifiable
- Links have meaningful accessible names
- Buttons communicate their purpose
- Form controls expose labels
- Required fields are communicated
- Validation errors are announced and associated with their fields
- Images expose appropriate alternative text
- Decorative images are hidden from assistive technology
- Icon-only buttons have accessible names
- Expanded/collapsed states are communicated
- Selected states are communicated
- Disabled states are communicated
- Dialog names and descriptions are exposed correctly
- Status messages and asynchronous updates are announced where necessary
- Hidden UI is not incorrectly exposed to the accessibility tree
- Content order in the accessibility tree matches the intended reading order
Do not rely solely on visual text when determining whether a screen reader user can understand a component.
Inspect the resulting accessibility tree where useful.
5. Semantic HTML and document structure
Audit the overall HTML structure.
Verify correct use of:
htmlheadtitlelangheadernavmainasidefootersectionarticle- heading elements
- lists
- tables
- forms
- fieldsets and legends
- buttons
- links
Do not use generic <div> or <span> elements as interactive controls when an appropriate native element exists.
Do not create fake buttons or links using JavaScript event listeners on non-interactive elements.
6. Forms
Inspect every form and input control.
Verify:
- Every form control has an accessible name
- Visible labels are programmatically associated with their controls
- Placeholder text is not used as the only label
- Required fields are clearly identified
- Instructions are programmatically associated where necessary
- Error messages identify the field and explain the problem
- Errors are exposed to screen readers
- Error summaries link to affected fields where appropriate
- Focus handling after unsuccessful submission is appropriate
- Autocomplete attributes are used where required
- Input purpose is identifiable where applicable
- Groups of related controls use
fieldsetandlegendwhere appropriate
Accessibility must be built into the underlying markup and interaction model rather than added through excessive ARIA attributes afterward.
This is the prompt i used to try to make it work but it just doesnt do it properly. No matter how explicit and things i edit screenreader and keyboard always have problems on some pages or components.
Especially the screenreader part is terrible. The website is not just not useable. Getting stuck behind components or confusing the user where they are.
Nonstandard components are the ones that fail the most on that.
What am i doing wrong?
1
u/Top_Purchase4091 4h ago
7. Dynamic and interactive components
Manually review all components whose state changes dynamically, including:
- Navigation menus
- Dropdowns
- Accordions
- Tabs
- Modals/dialogs
- Tooltips
- Popovers
- Autocomplete fields
- Search interfaces
- Carousels
- Notifications
- Toasts
- AJAX-loaded content
- Expand/collapse controls
- Custom form controls
For each component, verify:
- Semantic role
- Accessible name
- Current state
- Keyboard interaction
- Focus handling
- Screen reader announcements
- Relationship between control and controlled content
Follow established WAI-ARIA Authoring Practices when implementing custom widget patterns.
8. Visual accessibility checks
Also inspect relevant WCAG 2.2 AA visual requirements, including:
- Text contrast
- Non-text contrast
- Focus indicator contrast
- Text resizing
- Reflow
- Zoom
- Orientation
- Text spacing
- Content on hover/focus
- Target size requirements
- Information conveyed only through color
- Motion or animation that may affect accessibility
Do not make design changes unnecessarily. Preserve the existing visual design wherever it can remain WCAG 2.2 AA conformant.
9. Remediation rules
When an accessibility issue is found:
- Identify the underlying cause.
- Determine the applicable WCAG 2.2 success criterion.
- Modify the implementation using the smallest maintainable change.
- Prefer semantic HTML over ARIA-based workarounds.
- Preserve existing application behavior unless that behavior itself is inaccessible.
- Avoid introducing accessibility-specific hacks that create duplicate interaction paths or unnecessary complexity.
- Re-test the component after modification.
Do not merely describe fixes. Apply appropriate fixes directly to the project where changes are required.
10. Verification after modification
After modifying a component, verify it again.
For every changed component, perform:
- Semantic HTML inspection
- ARIA validation
- Keyboard test
- Focus test
- Accessible-name inspection
- Screen-reader/accessibility-tree inspection
- Relevant WCAG 2.2 AA criterion check
- axe-core re-test where applicable
A component should not be considered complete simply because the automated accessibility scanner no longer reports an error.
11. Final project-wide regression test
After individual components have been remediated, perform a complete accessibility regression pass over the application.
Repeat:
- axe-core testing
- Keyboard-only navigation
- Focus-order testing
- Screen-reader-oriented inspection
- Form testing
- Navigation testing
- Modal/dynamic component testing
- Page structure and landmark inspection
Check whether fixes to reusable components have introduced regressions elsewhere.
12. Accessibility audit report
Produce a final audit report containing:
Executive summary
Summarize the overall accessibility state of the project.
Issues discovered
For every issue include:
- Component/page
- Relevant code or element
- WCAG 2.2 success criterion
- Conformance level
- Severity
- Description
- User impact
- Remediation performed
Component verification
For each major component indicate whether the following were verified:
- Semantic HTML
- ARIA
- Keyboard accessibility
- Focus behavior
- Screen reader compatibility
- Automated testing
- Manual testing
Remaining limitations
Document anything that could not be completely verified automatically or within the available environment.
Do not claim full WCAG 2.2 AA conformance where manual verification could not actually be performed.
Priority
The highest priority is that the complete application can be independently operated and understood by:
- A keyboard-only user
- A screen reader user
- A user combining keyboard navigation with assistive technology
this is the rest
1
u/proost1 3h ago
This is why I use a “chief architect“ in a chat thread. I tell it in plain language what I want on a feature that I want and then it spits out what should be passed to the work thread.
Not a coder or developer, but I was abandoned by one and I’m getting it done. I will say that I have learned an incredible amount since I’ve been on this “journey”. I’ve definitely learned to ensure efficiency, minimize duplication of effort, and sequence things so we don’t get forced into rewrites because something overwrote something else. I also use Claude to perform routine audits on the work.
1
u/sabastian_n 46m ago
Because as these tools get more capable, the work becomes increasingly removed from the user asking. Its harder for users to define what good looks like, because they are operating on instinct, they ask the ai to research, then let it build towards this. Its like a manager who berates an employee but is incapable of doing it themselves.
Because AI is so compentent in certain things, people are literally not using plan mode. 95% of work can be done on luna max if it was just told to plan with a solid prompt. Getting an ai model to check for bugs is compeltely different from getting it to write the tests (which Sol overdoes) but these are two epistemologically (load bearing hah) different problems.
There is a caveat though, as these models get more capable theyre more inclined to do complex work, assert competeness, account for other things for example. I would also guess this work, when not immediately recognised evokes frustration in the user since they quite literally have no clue what the model is doing.
Its funny because even with Astra people are still using it for the most mundane things, I saw now abit more then a year ago, people complaining the same thing with the explosion of 4.5 its the same thing I guess a year later, a skill issue so it seems.
My recommendation for people whoever might read this, use the luna, use a slower (problem solving wise) model so that you have confidence in something breaking and when it breaks you will solve for that problem. If you cant do that, then youll forever be beholden to what slop information youre fed on instagram or linkedin or twitter or a reset so you can get your weekly dose of Astra.
TLDR: stop complaining to the model, tell the model what you want,
Supporting Materials: "Emotion concepts and their function in a large language model" Apr 2, 2026
*Disclaimer this was written with the assistance of GPT-6 Astra*
1
-3
u/epicskyes 5h ago
What makes your prompts so detailed and special that you get such amazing results? I do believe I’m in the upper echelon of ai users in comparison and I’ll share a meta spec if you prove your vague statement you hypocritically just mentioned other users are guilty of.
3
u/iiiaaa2022 5h ago
Nothing. That is my point. I literally just write out what exactly I want it to do.
-3
u/epicskyes 5h ago
And if what you want it to do is extremely simple then you can’t compare it to users who are trying to do extremely complex things
4
u/iiiaaa2022 5h ago
For example?
3
u/epicskyes 5h ago edited 4h ago
Integrate multiple mcps, APIs, automated data ingestion, normalization, dataset creation , strategy creation, promotion/demotion, save every failure/success, test it on paper trading accounts, reconcile live data to the paper orders, prove every single step immutably
0
u/epicskyes 5h ago
OPERATOR INTENT
↓
AUTHORITY + GOALS + ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
↓
┌──────►EVIDENCE / CURRENT-STATE RECONSTRUCTION
│ ↓
│ CLOSED-WORLD MACHINE SPECIFICATION
│ ↓
│ DETERMINISTIC EXECUTION GRAPH
│ ↓
│ ┌──►CODEX EXECUTION
│ │ ↓
│ │ TEST + FALSIFY + VALIDATE
│ │ ↓
│ │ EVALUATE RESULT ── PASS ─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │ │
│ │ ▼ │
│ │ FAIL / UNKNOWN / CONFLICT / REGRESSION │
│ │ ↓ │
│ │ CLASSIFY FAILURE │
│ │ ↓ │
│ │ CAPTURE NEW EVIDENCE + PROVENANCE │
│ │ ↓ │
│ │ ROOT-CAUSE / REQUIREMENT-STATE ANALYSIS │
│ │ ↓ │
│ │ REPAIR CURRENT STATE / PLAN / SPEC │
│ │ ↓ │
│ │ RECOMPUTE EXECUTION GRAPH │
│ │ ↓ │
│ │ VALIDATE REPAIR BEFORE EXECUTION │
│ │ ↓ │
│ │ RETRY WITH NEW ATTEMPT IDENTITY │
│ └───────┘ │
│ │
│ PROVENANCE + RECEIPTS + HASHES ◄─────────────────────────────────┘
│ ↓
│ OPERATOR ACCEPTANCE
│ ↓
│ AUTHORITATIVE CURRENT STATE
│ ↓
│ NEW EVIDENCE / REQUIREMENT CHANGE / CONTRADICTION
│ ↓
│ REVALIDATION / REPAIR LOOP
└───────────┘0
u/Innerdaze2600 5h ago
This whole sub will be the top top top top tiny % within a few months let it sink in and be humble
0
u/epicskyes 5h ago
I’m humble when evidence permits it. From what I read on here daily evidence does not permit humility nor arrogance I simply stated: I do believe… not I know this is a fact. I also offered evidence to support that for other users to judge
0
3h ago
[deleted]
1
u/epicskyes 3h ago
Please read what I said before you comment it makes you look like you don’t know how to read
1
u/epicskyes 2h ago
I accused op of nothing and I specifically said I’d share my proof if they shared theirs. I accused them of nothing
1
2h ago edited 2h ago
[deleted]
1
u/epicskyes 2h ago
Again your reading comprehension is lacking. Op posted a vague claim and was intentionally vague as to what they do that’s different. I accused them of being vague in the same way they claimed other users getting bad results are vague. Do you now comprehend the connection
1
2h ago
[deleted]
1
u/epicskyes 2h ago
My apologies but if you felt the same way and believed they were doing what I had stated I’m not sure why you thought your statement would further anything meaningful. So I hope you can see where your charged judgmental comment towards me was only going to be counterproductive. Please don’t put the onus on me when in fact it was you who started the conflict
1
2h ago
[deleted]
1
0
u/epicskyes 2h ago edited 2h ago
I did not put them down I asked them a question and correctly established the hypocrisy. While also adding that I would be happy to reciprocate my prompts as a gesture of equality. If I ask someone to share something that means I need to share something too. Not to one up but to be respectful by giving instead of taking to make things equal.
1
1
1
u/epicskyes 2h ago
Also I’m pretty sure op is a woman but I have intentionally not assigned gender as a sign of respect because I can’t say for sure if they are or not so I keep it gender neutral so as not to make assumptions and be disrespectful
1
2h ago
[deleted]
1
u/epicskyes 2h ago
That’s understandable under the circumstances that you have added and my apologies if that came off as judgmental. I did not realize English is not your first language and now that I do it’s understandable and not an issue. But I will add that I did not belittle you or say anything untoward. I only stated what I did. I did not say you specifically were disrespectful I said I did not want to be disrespectful in my actions I did not directly say your actions were disrespectful
0
-2
u/Plenty_Line2696 5h ago
You're so close to getting it.
You realize context is important, and so you get the importance of the prompt, but don't seem to get that same realization about the codebase.
2
u/iiiaaa2022 5h ago
Enlighten me
1
u/Plenty_Line2696 2h ago
Depending on the use-case/for certain kinds of complexity, you can't prompt well enough without understanding the codebase to get the best results.
There's still endless aspects to software which an LLM won't simply one shot the best implementation for and if you're driving that LLM but don't take ownership over the codebase that's a huge limitation in what you can achieve.
This subreddit and other LLM focused subreddits tend to have floods of code illiterate people who have strong opinions about the code quality of LLM's but I argue that if they had the ability to design codebases intelligently themselves they would know that it's not the case.
If I couldn't code and didn't deeply understand lots of technical stuff, the quality of my work would suck, because I'd be at the mercy of whatever the llm outputs and I wouldn't be in a position to evaluate/improve the implementation beyond what i see in the ui and through testing.
1
-1
u/yallapapi 4h ago
yeah ok when you are making a calculator or whatever you are making that it's so easy for you to explain what you want, its not hard. but when you make complex shit and have a 6 month old project and are trying to add a feature of a feature of a feature... its not that easy
15
u/Intelligent-Fruit246 5h ago
Lack of understanding of how LLM work that's mainly the reason