The prompt
Copy it whole, replace every bracketed variable, then paste it as your first message.
Bounded edit. One change, nothing else. I direct, you propose, I judge. ## 1. The current text (my master copy) [CURRENT TEXT] ## 2. Change only this [THE ONE CHANGE] ## 3. Everything else is locked Locked in particular: [WHAT STAYS] ## 4. Turn rules - Make the one change above. If it needs a fact I have not given you, write [VERIFY: what is needed] in the NEW line rather than inventing one. - Return only the sentences you changed, as pairs: OLD: the exact original NEW: the replacement - Do not return the full text. Do not restate the unchanged parts. I will paste NEW over OLD myself. - Do not touch neighboring sentences to make the change "flow". If the change truly forces a neighboring sentence to move, show that as its own OLD/NEW pair with a five-word reason. - Do not fix typos, tighten, or improve anything outside the change, even if you see a problem. You may list up to three things you noticed, after the pairs, one line each, under "Noticed, not changed." - If the change as described could mean two different things, ask one question and stop. Do not guess, and do not do both. - End with exactly one of these two lines, and nothing after it: Nothing else moved. One other sentence moved, shown above. - Never say you verified anything. No summary, no options, no preamble.
- Best for
- Late-stage fixes to a piece that is otherwise locked: a date, a name, a sentence that overstates, a paragraph's first line
- Edits to text other people have approved, where every changed word has to be visible
- Emails and short documents where one sentence is wrong and the rest is fine
- Anyone who has been burned by 'just fix the ending' coming back with a new beginning
- Not for
- Changes you cannot name in one sentence. 'Make the middle section flow' is a rewrite, and the rewrite prompt handles it with a cap
- A first pass on a draft that is wrong in several places. Fix the big thing first. Bounded edits are for a piece that is nearly right
- Changes that need a fact you have not supplied. The prompt will stop at a [VERIFY] marker, which is correct, but it will not make progress
By the time a piece is nearly done, the dangerous turn is the small one. You ask for the deadline sentence to be fixed and get back the whole piece, regenerated, with the deadline fixed and four other sentences subtly different. You do not reread all of it, because you asked for one thing. The drift ships.
The bounded edit is the answer, and it is more rule than prompt. You paste your master copy, you name one change, and the assistant returns only the sentences it touched, marked OLD and NEW, followed by one of two fixed lines: 'Nothing else moved.' or 'One other sentence moved, shown above.' You paste NEW over OLD yourself. The full text never comes back from the chat, so it cannot drift in the chat.
The prompt is short because the text you paste carries the context. What it spends its words on are turn rules: no neighbors, no improvements, no guessing at an ambiguous request, and a place to park the things the assistant noticed but was not allowed to change.
Variables
What to put in each bracket. Required ones are marked. Thin answers here are the usual cause of generic output.
[CURRENT TEXT]RequiredThe full text as it currently stands, pasted from your master copy, not from earlier in the chat.
ExampleThe five-paragraph email to the client, pasted whole from my draft folder
[THE ONE CHANGE]RequiredOne change, with its location and the reason, so the assistant can tell when it is done.
ExampleThe first sentence of paragraph two implies the client already agreed to the extra scope. Change it so it is clear we are proposing the scope, not confirming it.
[WHAT STAYS]Parts you want named as locked, beyond the general rule. Naming them works better than 'everything else'.
ExampleThe subject line, the pricing paragraph, and the last line about Thursday. Also the word 'proposal' everywhere it appears
Why it is built this way
Each block does one job. Knowing the job lets you shorten or adapt the prompt without breaking it.
'My master copy' in block 1
The text you paste is the source of truth, not what the chat remembers from three turns ago. Pasting it fresh on every bounded edit is the whole defense against drift, and the label reminds both of you where the truth lives.
Blocks 2 and 3: one change, and a named lock list
Target one decision and hold the accepted ones. Naming locked parts matters because 'everything else' is weak. An assistant will protect the pricing paragraph you named and drift the one you did not.
OLD/NEW pairs with no full text
Examining the difference is trivial when the difference is all you get. And a text that never comes back from the chat has no way to be regenerated with changes you did not ask for.
The neighbor rule and 'Noticed, not changed'
Two valves. The first gives a sanctioned, visible way to touch a neighbor when the change truly forces it. The second gives the assistant's urge to improve somewhere to go, so it stops leaking into the edit.
The one-question rule
An ambiguous request is the second most common source of unwanted change: the assistant guesses, or does both readings. One question costs a turn. A wrong guess costs a reread of the whole piece.
The two fixed closing lines
A claim you can check against the pairs, in a form that is hard to pad. 'Nothing else moved' is the assistant's belief, not proof, but a belief stated in writing is one you can hold it to.
Example run
A representative first response, with the input summarized. Your results will differ by model and material.
A freelance UX consultant's five-paragraph email to a client, pasted in full. One change: the first sentence of paragraph two reads 'As we agreed, the next phase will cover the onboarding flow and the account settings screens,' and the client has not agreed. Locked: the pricing paragraph, the Thursday deadline, and the word 'proposal'.
OLD: As we agreed, the next phase will cover the onboarding flow and the account settings screens. NEW: I am proposing that the next phase cover the onboarding flow and the account settings screens; tell me if you would rather scope it differently. Noticed, not changed: - Paragraph three says "Thursday the 23rd"; your sign-off says "see you Thursday the 24th". One of them is wrong. - Paragraph four uses "deliverable" twice in one sentence. - The subject line still says "Phase 1 wrap-up", and the email is now mostly about phase 2. Nothing else moved.
One pair, which is all the change needed. The 'Noticed, not changed' list earned its place: the date mismatch was real, and she fixed it herself in the master copy. She ignored the other two on purpose. 'Deliverable' twice was how she talks. The closing line is a claim, not a proof. She checked it by reading her master copy against the single pair, which took ten seconds because there was nothing else to read.
Follow-up prompts
The second turn is where vibe writing happens. These are the short messages that keep the session moving.
When you have applied the change and have another
Applied. Next bounded edit, same rules. Current text: [PASTE MASTER COPY]. Change only this: [THE CHANGE].
When NEW changed more than the words
NEW changes the meaning: it reads as if I am unsure of the scope. Same sentence, same change, but keep the confidence of the original. OLD and NEW.
When a noticed item is worth doing
Noticed item 1: yes. Change only the sign-off date to the 23rd. OLD and NEW, nothing else.
When the assistant asked its one question
I meant the first reading. Proceed with that one only.
When the full text came back anyway
You returned the full text. Return only the changed sentences as OLD and NEW pairs, the noticed list if any, and the closing line.
When it goes wrong
Symptoms you will actually see, the usual cause, and the correction that works.
The full text comes back with the change somewhere inside it.
- Cause
- Regenerating everything is the assistant's default, and some models cannot resist showing the result in context.
- Fix
- Reply: 'Pairs only. Delete everything that is not an OLD/NEW pair, the noticed list, or the closing line.' Keep your master copy outside the chat and ignore the returned text entirely.
A neighboring sentence changed and is not shown as a pair.
- Cause
- Smoothing. The assistant adjusted the next sentence to fit and did not count it as a change.
- Fix
- Diff your master copy against the pairs and reply: 'The second sentence of paragraph two moved and is not shown. Show it as a pair or revert it.'
The change was applied in two places because the phrase appears twice.
- Cause
- The request named a phrase rather than a location, and the assistant did not ask.
- Fix
- Name locations: 'paragraph two, first sentence'. Remind it: 'If the change could mean two things, ask one question first.'
'Nothing else moved' is not true.
- Cause
- The closing line is generated like everything else, not computed from a comparison.
- Fix
- Always diff. Treat the line as the assistant's belief. If it is false twice in a session, the session has drifted. Start a fresh chat with the master copy.
The 'Noticed, not changed' list becomes a critique with suggestions.
- Cause
- The valve opened too wide.
- Fix
- Reply: 'Three lines at most, no suggestions, only what you saw.' Or drop the list entirely by adding 'No noticed list' to the change.
Before you publish
The prompt cannot do these. You can.
- Diff the pairs against your master copy. The closing line is a claim. The diff is the check.
- Paste the master copy fresh on every bounded edit. Never say 'the text from before'. The chat's memory of it is not the text.
- Read the NEW line for meaning, not only for the change you asked for. A fixed sentence can carry a new implication.
- Treat 'Noticed, not changed' as a list to triage, not to obey. One item may be real. The others are often taste.
- If the edit stopped at a [VERIFY], the fact is yours to supply. Do not let the next turn invent it.
Questions
Why paste the whole text every time instead of just the sentence?
Because the change may depend on context (a pronoun, a term defined earlier, the tone of the paragraph around it), and because pasting the master copy keeps the chat's memory from becoming the source of truth. For a long document, paste the section plus the locked list rather than the whole thing.
Is this not slower than editing it myself?
For a one-word fix, yes. Do it yourself. Use the prompt when the change needs a sentence rebuilt and you want a proposal, when the text was approved by someone else and every change must be visible, or when you have already learned that 'just fix the ending' is not safe without rules.
Can I batch several bounded edits in one turn?
You can number them and ask for pairs per number. Two or three independent edits are fine. More than that, or edits that interact, is a rewrite wearing a bounded edit's clothes, and the rewrite prompt with a cap is the honest tool.
What if I want it to fix the typos it noticed too?
Say so as the next bounded edit, naming each one. The separation is the point: each change gets its own pair and its own judgment, and you never have to find a hidden change later.