Not that I have anything concrete in my mind yet. I'm learning as we all do. But after some usage I've developed a little bit of a hunch which prompt works and which not.

For example, I have mindlessly asked Claude Code over a large codebase "where is desktop app version stored and how is it presented on site". I have expected useless answer given how vague the questions was. Instead I have got a truly exceptional and extremely clear report that fully covers the question.

Another example. I have asked Claude Code to come up with a script to figure out funding rate time intervals on a given exchange and Code ended up in an almost endless loop running small test scripts in node.js to figure this out and came up with a super suboptimal and complicated solution. Turns out my prompt was too verbose and detailed and I have specifically asked Claude Code to figure out time intervals, not just get them. So it did. Instead of just querying the exchange via API and printing the list on terminal (3 lines script) it actually, truly tried to figure them out in various ways.

You should also try the same prompt multiple times to see how this works.

Sometimes you will get better or worse answers completely by chance.

I think Claude is pretty good if you have it write a function and give it the inputs, output and a data example. You can also put to ask clarifying questions as needed because there is a good chance there are aspects of the prompt that are ambiguous.

My prompts are always better if I write them in a separate text file and then paste them in too. I think I just take my time and think things out more that way instead of trying to get to the answer as fast.