Over the past six months, the chatbot Claude, from Anthropic, has become my writing assistant with tasks outside of client projects. At this point, however, he is nowhere near becoming eligible for promotion to writing partner. I have serious reservations not just about the quality and consistency of his work product but also about his ethics.
Some days, I’ve considered wearing my bite plane while working with Claude because his outputs cause so much teeth-grinding. Yet I persist because I see glimmers of potential, especially when it comes to developing my own writing skills.
So far, I see the most promise in Claude’s ability to act as a writing coach. I don’t trust him to edit my work or to draft anything but the most formulaic kinds of content, such as announcements about our monthly learning events. But he could have a bright future as a coach, provided we operate with certain safeguards in place.
Here are four ways I’ve been training Claude to help me see my writing from a different angle and improve drafts. Please take careful note of the recommended guardrails!
Method 1: Provide a Document Review
With guidance, Claude can serve as a “second set of eyes” on a draft. As is the case with any reviewer, however, the quality of the feedback you receive is only as good as the quality of your request.
Sample prompt:
The attached document is intended for __________. My goal is to ____________. Identify the document’s strengths and weaknesses.
Guardrails:
- I often have to give more details about the audience. During a single session with Claude, I may also have to remind him of the audience profile, as he will easily stray from it.
- Generally speaking, I ask Claude NOT to rewrite my work but rather to give me specific feedback. Otherwise, he will quickly start churning out content that looks good on the surface but is vacant—empty of precise meaning and human warmth.
- When I do want Claude’s input, I ask for him to rewrite a small portion of a document so I can see how he would apply his own advice. If the rewrite doesn’t seem to follow the advice, I ask him to explain his revision. (Sometimes he apologizes for deviating from his own instructions and then tries again.)
- Depending on the state of the draft, I may ask Claude NOT to provide feedback on a specific dimension of the writing. For example, if the draft is unedited, I might direct him NOT to comment on wordiness or sentence structure. If the draft is incomplete, I will ask him NOT to evaluate the conclusion.
- As I create different versions of the document, sometimes in pieces, I ask Claude for more specific kinds of feedback. For example, I might ask him to review a particular section for focus or tone.
- As I revise, I have to keep Claude on track by reminding him of his earlier feedback as I’ve found he is prone to giving contradictory advice.
- Claude is like a novice reviewer in that he tends to assume that anything put before him should be rewritten. I’ve not found him very good at perceiving what “good enough” looks like. When his suggested changes seem more than what’s required for the audience and purpose, I ask him to re-evaluate the original against his assessment criteria. Sometimes he comes back with something like this: “Actually, your original is very good. I’d go with that.”
Method 2: Tighten Focus
Meaning often evolves through the writing process, and what we thought we wanted to say when we first started to type is not always what our draft actually says. Claude can help separate your intention from your written product and sharpen your focus.
Sample prompt:
The attached document is intended for ______________. The main point I’m trying to make is that________________. How can I make this main point more obvious?
Guardrails:
- I have not found it useful to ask Claude for help generating ideas as I find he leaps to assumptions and tries to force my thinking into a pre-fabricated mold.
- Claude can quickly get very salesy in his approach, so I often have to tone down his suggestions for making the point more explicit.
- Even though I have turned on the setting to allow Claude to remember our conversations, he often forgets our past chats. I frequently have to remind him about the characteristics and preferences of a particular audience.
- When the argument of a piece of writing deviates from what Claude expects, he can misinterpret it entirely. I have to probe to find out the basis for his suggestions. I often ask him, “How did you arrive at that suggestion?” or “Why do you say that?” In many cases, he will do an about-face and apologize for having misread the draft.
Method 3: Create Sections
I learned to write by producing traditional academic essays—long, unbroken bodies of text. Modern writing style, however, requires content to be “chunked” into sections and subsections. When you’re deep in the weeds of a piece of writing, Claude can provide the critical distance to divide and subdivide your ideas.
Sample prompt:
Attached is an article of about 1,300 words. Break it into sections of 250 to 350 words each by supplying subheadlines. Leave the rest of the article intact.
Guardrails:
- The instruction to “leave the rest of the article intact” is critical if you don’t want Claude to make any changes other than inserting headlines. This is the phrasing he suggested I use. (Yes, I know Claude is an “it,” but our relationship has developed to the point that I now call him “he.”)
- There’s no guarantee that Claude will divide the article in logical places. I often have to push back on his choices. He may, for instance, create sections that are too short or too long, or he may misconstrue the main point of a section.
Method 4: Refine Headlines
Headlines, like other aspects of copy writing (writing used for marketing purposes), operate on formulas. Using these formulas, Claude can quickly generate multiple versions of a headline and explain his approach to each. Often, he’ll divide them into categories. For instance, he might provide three headlines designed to rouse curiosity, three that reverse a cliché, and three that use a question-and-answer structure.
Sample prompt:
Attached is a document written for ________________. The goal is to ____________. Please provide at least six possible headlines.
Guardrails:
- The more sample headlines you can consider, the more clearly you can see the underlying patterns. Use the formulas as starting points for creating a heading in your own, authentic voice.
- Remember that Claude can easily veer into sales talk. You may need to remind him, perhaps more than once, of who your audience is and the kind of language that resonates with them.
- Find ways to test headlines. Before you release that important impact report, try out different titles with colleagues in your organization and perhaps with a few friendly readers outside it. If your technology allows you to run a split test of different headlines (on an email or webpage), take advantage of that learning opportunity.
Remember Who’s in Charge
As a writing-coach-in-training, Claude can provide helpful insights, or he can send you dashing madly off in the wrong direction. His feedback is useful only when you vet it carefully and push back vigorously against advice that seems suspect.
In a strange way, this pushing back can be useful as a confidence builder. When a piece of writing lacks clarity, the underlying issue is often that the writer lacks self-trust. Over the years, I’ve seen this time and again with students and clients, and I’ve experienced it myself too.
During one recent exchange with Claude, during which his contradictory advice had me clenching my jaw in frustration, I finally spat out: “Sorry, but your version is slop.”
It turns out that was just the prompt I needed to recognize the strength of my own thinking, shut down Claude, and find the right language to express my message.
As a writing coach with more than 25 years of experience across various academic disciplines and industries, I’m now integrating AI into the work I do with teams and individuals. If you’re looking to improve your productivity and increase your influence, a coaching package may be a smart investment for you.
If you'd like to find out about how coaching works, I invite you to book a free 30-minute coaching session. We’ll chat about your research, the impact you want it to make, and the obstacles holding you back. Whether or not you decide to engage Clarity Connect, you’ll come away with a fresh perspective and a couple practical pointers to take back to your desk.
Comments