Turn messy prompts into clear, testable instructions today. Balance context, constraints, examples, and output structure. Improve consistency, reduce retries, and save valuable time daily.
Rate each clarity dimension from 0 (missing) to 5 (excellent). Add your prompt text for extra diagnostics.
Sample ratings and resulting score, for reference.
| Dimension | Example rating | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Objective clarity | 5.0 | Defines one measurable output. |
| Constraints specificity | 4.5 | Limits scope and prevents unwanted content. |
| Output format detail | 4.0 | Reduces guesswork in structure. |
| Success criteria | 4.0 | Clarifies what “done” looks like. |
| Examples or references | 3.5 | Anchors style and expectations. |
| Example outcome: base score ≈ 84.0, with minimal penalties, final score ≈ 82–86. | ||
The calculator uses weighted ratings, normalized to a 0–100 scale:
If you paste prompt text, two adjustments are applied:
FinalScore = clamp(BaseScore + LengthAdjust + VaguePenalty, 0, 100)
Prompt performance is often limited by ambiguity, not model capability. A clarity score converts subjective “good prompting” into a repeatable signal you can track across tasks. When teams measure clarity, they can compare drafts, shorten review cycles, and reduce back‑and‑forth messages. In practice, higher clarity typically means fewer revisions and more stable outputs with minimal friction.
The calculator rates objective, context, constraints, output format, tone, examples, assumptions, audience, role, success criteria, process structure, and edge cases. Each dimension is weighted to emphasize high‑impact elements like goals, constraints, and success criteria. Ratings use a 0–5 scale with half‑step granularity, enabling small improvements to be visible. Better scores usually correlate with fewer follow‑up questions, fewer missing fields, and fewer invented details.
The base score is normalized to a 0–100 scale from weighted ratings, then adjusted for prompt length and vague wording when text is provided. Length heuristics penalize very short prompts that lack context and very long prompts that mix instructions. Grades provide a quick benchmark for stakeholders, while confidence reflects the strength of the core structure. High confidence typically means the prompt defines measurable outputs, explicit boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
Replace broad adjectives with numbers, named entities, and explicit exclusions. Specify input ranges, formatting rules, and what to omit, especially for sensitive or off‑scope content. Add one positive example and one counterexample to anchor intent and reduce interpretation drift. The vague‑word detector flags terms like “some,” “better,” or “appropriate,” and repeated hits can reduce the score up to ten points. When prompts are long, group instructions into labeled sections to prevent contradictions.
Use the score during drafting, peer review, and prompt libraries. Set target bands by use case: exploratory ideation can accept lower constraints, while production automation should target higher constraints, format detail, and success criteria. Store top‑performing prompts alongside their scores and update them when requirements change. Track average scores over time to measure process maturity, onboard new writers, and quantify reliability gains across teams.
It summarizes how well a prompt specifies intent, context, constraints, and output structure. Higher scores usually reduce follow‑ups and increase consistency because the model has fewer gaps to infer.
Each dimension rating is multiplied by its weight, summed, and normalized against the maximum possible weighted score. The result is a base score on a 0–100 scale.
Very short prompts often omit context, while very long prompts can introduce conflicting instructions. The calculator applies a small length adjustment so the score reflects practical usability.
Common ambiguous terms like “some,” “better,” or “appropriate” are counted in the prompt text. Each hit reduces one point, up to a maximum ten‑point penalty.
Grades provide quick benchmarks for reporting. Confidence reflects how strong core structure ratings are, especially objective, constraints, success criteria, and output format.
Yes. After calculating, use the CSV or PDF buttons to download your latest result. Exports include the score, diagnostics, and recommendations for easy sharing.
Important Note: All the Calculators listed in this site are for educational purpose only and we do not guarentee the accuracy of results. Please do consult with other sources as well.