# Asking for things properly | Claude for Real Work

> The four things a request needs before it can go right: the goal, the constraints, an example, and what finished looks like.

Source: https://karakabakov.com/courses/claude-for-real-work/asking-properly/

---

[← Claude for Real Work](https://karakabakov.com/courses/claude-for-real-work/)

# Asking for things properly

Lesson 03 of 28 · 12 min · Updated August 21, 2026

Asking for things properly is giving a request the four things it needs before it can go right: the goal, the constraints, an example, and what finished looks like. There are no magic words. Nothing in this lesson is a phrase that unlocks better answers, because that is not how it works and anyone selling you a list of them is selling you a list.

What there is: four things a request can be missing, and a bad answer is nearly always missing one of them. Once you can spot which, fixing a request takes about eight seconds.

## What are the four things a request needs?

**The goal.** Not the task, the outcome. “Summarise this” is a task. “Summarise this so I can decide whether to attend” is an outcome, and it changes which sentences survive.

**The constraints.** Length, format, audience, tone, what to leave out. Every constraint you do not state is a decision it makes for you, and it will make a reasonable one that is not yours.

**An example.** The single most underused thing here. One sample of the output you want beats three paragraphs describing it, because a description of a style is a much worse specification than the style itself.

**What finished looks like.** How you will know the answer is right. This one is for you as much as for Claude: if you cannot say what a good answer looks like, you will accept the first plausible one.

## Watch it work

The bad version, and it is bad in a way that is easy to miss:

```
Can you help me write an email about the stock take?
```

You will get an email. It will be fine. It will also be four paragraphs when you wanted two, addressed to nobody in particular, in a register that is slightly more formal than your office, and it will not mention the thing you needed to say.

The same request with the four things in it:

```
Write an email to the three warehouse staff telling them the stock take moved from
Friday to Monday.

Constraints: under 80 words, plain, no greeting flourish. We are a small team and I
talk to these people every day.

Here is the tone I want, from a previous email:
"Quick one. The delivery slot changed to Thursday morning. Nothing else moves. Shout
if that breaks something for you."

Done means: it says the new date, says why in half a sentence, and asks them to flag a
clash.
```

Four sentences of setup for an email you will send once. Worth it? For an email, probably not. For the sort of thing you will ask forty times, yes, and that is what lesson 5 is about.

The point of writing it out long once is to see which part was doing the work. Take the example line out and the tone drifts. Take the “done means” line out and it stops asking them to flag a clash.

## The failure that looks like success

Here is the shape to watch for, because it catches everyone.

You ask for something vague. You get back something competent. You read it, think “that’s not quite it”, and ask for a tweak. Then another. Six messages later you have something close to right and you have spent more time than writing it yourself would have taken.

None of those six messages felt like a mistake. Each one was a small improvement. The mistake was message one, and it was invisible.

The habit that fixes it: **when the second correction is about the same thing as the first, stop and rewrite the request.** Do not send correction three. Start a new chat and say what you wanted, including the two things you have now discovered you care about.

## Correcting well

When you do correct, correct with the problem, not with disapproval.

These work:

- “Too long. Half the length, keep the second and fourth points."
- "The tone is off. It reads like a memo from head office; I want it to read like a text message."
- "You have assumed the count is on a weekday. It is a Saturday.”

These do not work as well as people expect:

- “No."
- "Make it better."
- "That’s wrong.”

The difference is that the first set contains information and the second set contains a verdict. It cannot act on a verdict, so it guesses at what you meant, and you get a different answer rather than a better one.

## Two phrasings worth stealing

**”Ask me questions first.”** For anything with real detail in it:

```
I need to write a stock control procedure for a new starter. Before you write anything,
ask me the five questions whose answers would most change what you write.
```

This is a good trade. Five questions cost you a minute and remove the four rounds of correction where it guessed.

**”Give me three versions.”** For anything where you will know it when you see it:

```
Three versions of that sentence: one plain, one warmer, one shorter than both.
```

Choosing between three is faster than describing one, and you often find that what you wanted was a mix.

## Your turn

Take a real thing you have to write this week. A message, a summary, a description, an update. Something real, because the exercise does not work on a made-up task.

First, ask for it in one sentence, the way you would have before this lesson. Read the answer and note the two things that are wrong with it.

Now start a **new chat** and ask again with all four things: the goal, the constraints, an example of the tone or shape you want, and a sentence saying what “finished” means.

> **Check:** the second answer needs no corrections, or one. If it still needs three, look at which of the four you left out; it is nearly always the example. Then compare how long the two attempts took you in total, including the corrections on the first one. That number is the real result of this lesson.

Keep the second prompt. You will use it again in lesson 5.

## Recap

No magic words. Four things: the goal behind the task, the constraints you would otherwise be annoyed about, an example of what you want, and how you will know it is right.

An example beats a description of a style, every time.

The expensive failure is a vague request answered competently, corrected six times. When the second correction repeats the first, stop and rewrite the request in a new chat.

Correct with the problem, not with a verdict. “Ask me questions first” and “give me three versions” are worth having in your fingers.

Next: what it can see, and why a long conversation gets worse rather than better.

[← Previous

## Getting set up](https://karakabakov.com/courses/claude-for-real-work/getting-set-up/) [Next →

## What Claude can see](https://karakabakov.com/courses/claude-for-real-work/what-claude-can-see/)

[← All lessons](https://karakabakov.com/courses/claude-for-real-work/) [Next lesson →](https://karakabakov.com/courses/claude-for-real-work/what-claude-can-see/)