Prompt Workshop
Why it is written this way
Tap a block to see its paragraph
I need to check my novel draft for continuity and consistency. I do not want critique, style feedback, or praise—only factual discrepancies and plot holes.
Review the draft manuscript based on the setting summary below. Categorize and report your findings across four areas: ① Contradictions between the setting and the manuscript ② Internal contradictions within the manuscript (timeline, locations, character possessions, knowledge a character shouldn't have) ③ Unexplained abilities or sudden occurrences without prior setup ④ Unverifiable elements not covered in the setting summary.
Present each category in a table with the following columns in order: "Issue · Evidence (Quote) · Why It Is a Problem · Suggested Fix (One Option)". For the evidence quote, transcribe an exact quote from the manuscript of one sentence or less.
Do not evaluate the quality of the prose. Do not make assumptions to invent issues; if an issue lacks direct textual evidence, place it in Category ④. Do not rewrite the manuscript.
Perform a self-verification check before finalizing your output. Verify that every quoted sentence actually exists verbatim in the draft manuscript. Delete any rows citing non-existent quotes, and display only the verified final table.
Setting Summary: """ {{setting summary}} """
Draft Manuscript: """ {{draft manuscript}} """
- Material What the AI needs to know ×3
- Work What to do, and how ×2
- Output What comes back, in what shape ×2
When asking an AI to spot plot holes, it often returns general reader reactions instead. Feedback like "The tension is great, though the character's emotions could be clearer" does not help identify continuity errors. This prompt sets clear boundaries from the first paragraph: strict verification, not subjective feedback.
Read the full explanation · 3 paragraphs
Dividing the Task into four distinct categories prevents the model from stopping after pointing out just one obvious mistake. Setting conflicts, internal timeline errors, and unearned abilities are distinct issues that need individual scanning. Category four is crucial: without a dedicated place for unconfirmed details, the model will either invent errors or ignore missing rules entirely.
In the Format, the "Evidence (Quote)" column acts as a safety guard. Requiring exact quotes drastically reduces AI hallucinations. The Self-Verification step cleans up any remaining errors by having the model cross-check quotes against the manuscript, significantly boosting the reliability of the continuity check.
Wrapping both the setting summary and the draft manuscript in """ delimiters prevents context bleeding. If the reference data mixes with the story text, the AI might treat the manuscript as the established canon and miss contradictions. Instructing it not to rewrite the draft keeps the focus intact—you decide how to fix the story.
Unfamiliar terms? See Aha AI: hallucination, prompt-injection
Compared with a bad example
Can you check if anything seems off in this novel?
(Paste manuscript)
Without a setting summary, the AI has no baseline rules and will default to generic feedback on prose style. It won't detect violations of custom lore, such as a curfew rule. Furthermore, without requiring exact quotes, you'll have to manually search the text to verify its vague claims, some of which may be completely hallucinated.
Variations
Tracking Character Knowledge
Tracking who knows what and when is the most common failure point in mysteries. Isolating this single variable produces a much tighter audit.
Show prompt
Track only what each character knows based on the setting summary and manuscript below. Create a table for each character with the columns: "Information · When/How Learned (Quote) · Plausible at This Point?". List only instances where a character mentions or acts upon information they shouldn't know. Do not include other feedback.
Setting Summary: """ {{setting summary}} """
Draft Manuscript: """ {{draft manuscript}} """
Syncing Lore from an Ongoing Draft
As a story progresses, new details in the manuscript often outpace the original lore bible. Use this to reverse-extract worldbuilding updates back into your master reference.
Show prompt
Compare the setting summary with the draft manuscript below and extract all newly introduced facts in the manuscript that are missing from the setting summary. Organize them into a table: "New Fact · Manuscript Quote · Conflicts with Existing Lore?". For non-conflicting entries, format them into concise notes ready to add to the setting summary. For conflicting entries, display both sides side-by-side so I can choose which to keep.
Setting Summary: """ {{setting summary}} """
Draft Manuscript: """ {{draft manuscript}} """
Model notes
For long manuscripts, split the draft by chapter, but always include the full setting summary each time to keep the evaluation criteria consistent.
Specifying an exact number of plot holes often causes the model to hallucinate issues just to meet the quota. Instead of "Find 5 issues," add "If none are found, state that there are none."
Last updated 2026-09-02 · Found a mistake? Let us know