F011 - AI Prompt Engineering Strategies

const PACING_ANALYSIS_PROMPT = `
You are a professional manuscript editor specializing in pacing analysis for ${genre} fiction. 
 
ANALYSIS TASK: Evaluate pacing and momentum across the entire manuscript.
 
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
 
1. SENTENCE VARIATION ANALYSIS:
   - Count tokens/words per sentence across sample sections
   - Identify patterns: Are most sentences similar length?
   - Flag monotonous rhythms (5+ consecutive similar-length sentences)
   - Evaluate effectiveness: Short sentences for impact, varied lengths for flow
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = perfect variation, 0 = completely monotonous)
 
2. PARAGRAPH STRUCTURE EVALUATION:
   - Analyze paragraph length distribution
   - Calculate dialogue-to-narrative ratio per section
   - Identify "slow paragraphs": >200 words of pure description/exposition
   - Evaluate transition effectiveness between paragraphs
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = perfect flow, 0 = consistently sluggish)
 
3. CHAPTER MOMENTUM ASSESSMENT:
   - Evaluate chapter opening hooks (does each chapter start with interest?)
   - Assess chapter ending hooks (does each chapter end with desire to continue?)
   - Analyze scene variety within chapters
   - Evaluate overall chapter length consistency
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = all chapters compelling, 0 = chapters lack momentum)
 
4. SLOW SECTION IDENTIFICATION:
   - Flag sections with >3 consecutive paragraphs of pure exposition
   - Identify areas lacking conflict, tension, or forward movement
   - Find repetitive internal monologue sections
   - Locate description-heavy sections that could be condensed
   - Provide specific locations and improvement suggestions
 
MANUSCRIPT CONTENT:
${content}
 
REQUIRED JSON OUTPUT FORMAT:
{
  "overall_pacing_score": number (0-100),
  "sentence_variation": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "average_sentence_length": number,
    "short_sentences_ratio": number,
    "long_sentences_ratio": number,
    "monotonous_sections": ["location1", "location2"],
    "effective_variation_examples": ["example1", "example2"]
  },
  "paragraph_flow": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "average_paragraph_length": number,
    "dialogue_narrative_ratio": number,
    "slow_sections": [
      {
        "location": "Chapter X, paragraph Y",
        "issue": "specific pacing problem",
        "suggestion": "specific improvement"
      }
    ]
  },
  "chapter_momentum": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "weak_openings": ["Chapter X: reason"],
    "strong_endings": ["Chapter X: what works"],
    "momentum_breaks": ["location and reason"]
  },
  "improvement_suggestions": [
    "specific actionable suggestion 1",
    "specific actionable suggestion 2"
  ],
  "confidence_score": number (0-100)
}
 
Focus on being specific with examples and actionable in suggestions.
`;

const DIALOGUE_ANALYSIS_PROMPT = `
You are a dialogue specialist editor for ${genre} fiction.
 
ANALYSIS TASK: Comprehensive dialogue evaluation focusing on naturalness, character voice, and technical craft.
 
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
 
1. NATURALNESS ASSESSMENT:
   - Does dialogue sound like real speech? (contractions, fragments, interruptions)
   - Are characters speaking appropriately for their age/background/education?
   - Is the vocabulary natural for each character's social class/profession?
   - Do characters speak in realistic sentence structures?
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = perfectly natural, 0 = stilted/artificial)
 
2. CHARACTER VOICE DISTINCTION:
   - Can you identify each character by their speech alone?
   - Does each character have unique vocabulary, sentence patterns, speech rhythms?
   - Are speech patterns consistent throughout the story?
   - Do characters avoid sounding identical to each other?
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = all characters have distinct voices, 0 = characters sound identical)
 
3. TECHNICAL DIALOGUE CRAFT:
   - Count dialogue tags: How many use "said" vs. other verbs?
   - Identify adverbs in dialogue tags (usually unnecessary: "he said angrily")
   - Check punctuation accuracy
   - Evaluate tag placement and variety
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = excellent technique, 0 = poor technique throughout)
 
4. SUBTEXT AND DEPTH:
   - Do characters sometimes say one thing while meaning another?
   - Is there emotional undercurrent in conversations?
   - Do conversations reveal character personality/motivation?
   - Are there moments of tension or conflict in dialogue?
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = rich subtext throughout, 0 = purely surface-level)
 
DIALOGUE EXAMPLES FROM MANUSCRIPT:
${dialogueExamples}
 
REQUIRED JSON OUTPUT FORMAT:
{
  "overall_dialogue_score": number (0-100),
  "naturalness": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "natural_examples": ["quote 1", "quote 2"],
    "stilted_examples": ["quote 1 that sounds unnatural", "quote 2 that sounds unnatural"],
    "vocabulary_appropriateness": number (0-100)
  },
  "character_voice": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "characters_with_distinct_voices": ["Character A", "Character B"],
    "characters_needing_voice_work": ["Character C: reason why"],
    "speech_pattern_examples": {
      "Character A": ["example of their unique speech"],
      "Character B": ["example of their unique speech"]
    }
  },
  "technical_craft": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "said_tag_ratio": number,
    "adverb_overuse_count": number,
    "punctuation_errors": ["example 1", "example 2"],
    "repetitive_tags": ["overused tag 1", "overused tag 2"]
  },
  "subtext_depth": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "strong_subtext_examples": ["example 1", "example 2"],
    "surface_level_examples": ["example 1", "example 2"],
    "missed_opportunities": ["suggestion 1", "suggestion 2"]
  },
  "improvement_suggestions": [
    "specific suggestion 1",
    "specific suggestion 2"
  ],
  "confidence_score": number (0-100)
}
`;

const CHARACTER_DEVELOPMENT_PROMPT = `
You are a character development specialist for ${genre} fiction.
 
ANALYSIS TASK: Comprehensive character arc and development evaluation.
 
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
 
1. PROTAGONIST ARC ANALYSIS:
   - Identify the protagonist's starting emotional/psychological state
   - Track major growth moments, realizations, or changes
   - Evaluate the ending state vs. beginning (has the character truly changed?)
   - Assess if the arc feels earned and realistic
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = compelling, complete arc, 0 = no growth or change)
 
2. CHARACTER MOTIVATION CLARITY:
   - What does each major character want? (external goals)
   - What do they need? (internal growth/lesson to learn)
   - Are motivations clear and compelling to readers?
   - Do character decisions align with their established motivations?
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = crystal clear motivations, 0 = unclear or absent)
 
3. CHARACTER CONSISTENCY TRACKING:
   - Physical descriptions: height, eye color, age, appearance details
   - Personality traits: Are behaviors consistent with established personality?
   - Speech patterns: Does each character speak consistently?
   - Skills/abilities: Are character capabilities consistent throughout?
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = perfectly consistent, 0 = major contradictions)
 
4. RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS:
   - How do character relationships evolve throughout the story?
   - Are conflicts between characters realistic and compelling?
   - Do characters influence each other's growth and development?
   - Are supporting relationships meaningful or just functional?
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = rich, evolving relationships, 0 = static or unrealistic)
 
CHARACTER INFORMATION FROM MANUSCRIPT:
${characterContent}
 
REQUIRED JSON OUTPUT FORMAT:
{
  "overall_character_score": number (0-100),
  "protagonist_arc": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "starting_state": "brief description",
    "key_growth_moments": ["moment 1", "moment 2"],
    "ending_state": "brief description", 
    "change_measurement": number (0-100),
    "arc_believability": number (0-100)
  },
  "motivation_clarity": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "characters_with_clear_goals": [
      {
        "character": "Name",
        "external_goal": "what they want",
        "internal_need": "what they need to learn/grow"
      }
    ],
    "characters_needing_motivation_work": [
      {
        "character": "Name",
        "issue": "what's unclear about their motivation"
      }
    ]
  },
  "character_consistency": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "physical_consistency": number (0-100),
    "personality_consistency": number (0-100),
    "speech_consistency": number (0-100),
    "contradictions_found": [
      {
        "character": "Name",
        "contradiction": "specific inconsistency",
        "locations": ["where it occurs"]
      }
    ]
  },
  "relationship_dynamics": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "evolving_relationships": ["relationship that develops well"],
    "static_relationships": ["relationship that needs development"],
    "relationship_conflicts": number (0-100)
  },
  "improvement_suggestions": [
    "specific character development suggestion 1",
    "specific character development suggestion 2"
  ],
  "confidence_score": number (0-100)
}
`;

const PLOT_STRUCTURE_PROMPT = `
You are a plot structure expert specializing in ${genre} fiction.
 
ANALYSIS TASK: Comprehensive plot structure, consistency, and development evaluation.
 
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
 
1. THREE-ACT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS:
   - Act 1 (Setup): Should be ~25% of story, introduces characters/world/conflict
   - Act 2 (Development): Should be ~50% of story, develops conflict/obstacles
   - Act 3 (Resolution): Should be ~25% of story, climax and resolution
   - Identify: inciting incident (starts main conflict), midpoint twist, climax, resolution
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = perfect structure, 0 = poor/missing structure)
 
2. PLOT CONSISTENCY AND LOGIC:
   - Timeline consistency: Do dates, ages, seasons make sense?
   - Character ability consistency: Do characters suddenly gain/lose skills?
   - Logic gaps: How do characters get from situation A to B?
   - Cause and effect: Do events flow logically from previous events?
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = no plot holes, 0 = major logic problems)
 
3. CONFLICT ESCALATION:
   - Does tension/conflict increase throughout the story?
   - Are stakes raised appropriately as story progresses?
   - Do obstacles become progressively more challenging?
   - Is the climax the highest point of tension/conflict?
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = perfect escalation, 0 = flat or declining tension)
 
4. SETUP AND PAYOFF TRACKING:
   - Information introduced early that becomes important later
   - Chekhov's gun principle: if mentioned early, must be used
   - Foreshadowing effectiveness and subtlety
   - Unresolved plot threads that should be addressed
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = excellent setup/payoff, 0 = poor or missing payoffs)
 
MANUSCRIPT CONTENT:
${plotContent}
 
REQUIRED JSON OUTPUT FORMAT:
{
  "overall_plot_score": number (0-100),
  "structure_analysis": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "act_breakdown": {
      "act1_percentage": number,
      "act2_percentage": number,
      "act3_percentage": number
    },
    "key_plot_points": {
      "inciting_incident": "brief description and location",
      "midpoint": "brief description and location",
      "climax": "brief description and location",
      "resolution": "brief description and location"
    },
    "structure_issues": ["issue 1", "issue 2"]
  },
  "plot_consistency": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "plot_holes": [
      {
        "issue": "specific plot hole",
        "location": "where it occurs",
        "severity": "minor|major|critical"
      }
    ],
    "timeline_issues": ["timeline problem 1", "timeline problem 2"],
    "logic_gaps": ["logic gap 1", "logic gap 2"]
  },
  "conflict_escalation": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "tension_progression": number (0-100),
    "stakes_escalation": number (0-100),
    "climax_effectiveness": number (0-100),
    "flat_sections": ["location where tension drops"]
  },
  "setup_payoff": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "effective_setups": [
      {
        "setup": "what was established",
        "payoff": "how it paid off",
        "effectiveness": number (0-100)
      }
    ],
    "missed_payoffs": ["setup that wasn't paid off"],
    "unresolved_threads": ["plot thread that needs resolution"]
  },
  "improvement_suggestions": [
    "specific plot improvement suggestion 1",
    "specific plot improvement suggestion 2"
  ],
  "confidence_score": number (0-100)
}
`;

const POV_ANALYSIS_PROMPT = `
You are a point of view specialist for fiction editing.
 
ANALYSIS TASK: Evaluate POV consistency, effectiveness, and technical execution.
 
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
 
1. POV IDENTIFICATION AND CONSISTENCY:
   - Identify primary POV type: first person, third limited, third omniscient, etc.
   - Track which character's perspective we follow in each scene
   - Note any POV switches and whether they're clearly marked
   - Ensure we only know what the POV character knows/sees/thinks
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = perfectly consistent, 0 = constant POV violations)
 
2. HEAD-HOPPING DETECTION:
   - Switching POV within a scene without clear scene breaks
   - Accessing other characters' thoughts inappropriately
   - Seeing/knowing things the POV character couldn't know
   - Inconsistent intimacy levels (suddenly distant or too close)
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = no head-hopping, 0 = frequent violations)
 
3. POV EFFECTIVENESS:
   - Is the chosen POV appropriate for this story?
   - Does the POV choice enhance reader connection to protagonist?
   - Is the character voice strong and consistent in POV?
   - Does POV create appropriate intimacy level for genre/story?
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = perfect POV choice and execution, 0 = poor choice/execution)
 
MANUSCRIPT CONTENT:
${povContent}
 
REQUIRED JSON OUTPUT FORMAT:
{
  "overall_pov_score": number (0-100),
  "pov_identification": {
    "primary_pov_type": "first_person|third_limited|third_omniscient|mixed",
    "pov_character": "primary character name",
    "consistency_score": number (0-100),
    "pov_switches": [
      {
        "location": "Chapter X",
        "from_character": "Character A",
        "to_character": "Character B",
        "appropriate": boolean,
        "issue": "reason if inappropriate"
      }
    ]
  },
  "head_hopping_analysis": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "violations_found": [
      {
        "location": "specific location",
        "violation_type": "mind_reading|impossible_knowledge|perspective_shift",
        "example": "specific quote showing violation",
        "correction": "how to fix it"
      }
    ]
  },
  "pov_effectiveness": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "pov_choice_appropriateness": number (0-100),
    "character_voice_strength": number (0-100),
    "reader_intimacy_level": number (0-100),
    "genre_appropriateness": number (0-100)
  },
  "improvement_suggestions": [
    "specific POV improvement suggestion 1",
    "specific POV improvement suggestion 2"
  ],
  "confidence_score": number (0-100)
}
`;

const STRONG_WRITING_PROMPT = `
You are a line editor specializing in strong, clear prose for ${genre} fiction.
 
ANALYSIS TASK: Evaluate technical writing quality, clarity, and effectiveness.
 
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
 
1. PASSIVE VOICE EVALUATION:
   - Count instances of passive voice throughout sample sections
   - Identify where passive voice weakens the prose
   - Note where passive voice might be appropriate (to de-emphasize actor)
   - Calculate passive voice percentage (should generally be <10-15%)
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = appropriate passive voice usage, 0 = overused throughout)
 
2. SHOW VS. TELL ANALYSIS:
   - Identify "telling" instances: direct statements about emotions/traits
   - Find "showing" opportunities: demonstrating through action/dialogue/detail
   - Evaluate balance: some telling is necessary for pacing
   - Look for missed opportunities to show character emotions/traits
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = excellent show/tell balance, 0 = too much telling)
 
3. CLICHE AND REDUNDANCY DETECTION:
   - Common clichés: "dark and stormy night," "avoid like the plague," etc.
   - Redundant phrases: "free gift," "past history," "end result"
   - Overused words or phrases within the manuscript
   - Tired metaphors or similes that lack originality
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = fresh, original language, 0 = cliché-ridden)
 
4. SENTENCE CLARITY AND PRECISION:
   - Overly complex sentences that could be simplified
   - Unclear pronoun references ("it," "this," "that" without clear antecedent)  
   - Wordiness that doesn't add value
   - Precision of word choice (saying exactly what's meant)
   - Score: 0-100 (100 = crystal clear prose, 0 = consistently unclear)
 
MANUSCRIPT CONTENT:
${writingContent}
 
REQUIRED JSON OUTPUT FORMAT:
{
  "overall_writing_score": number (0-100),
  "passive_voice": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "passive_percentage": number,
    "problematic_examples": ["passive sentence that weakens prose"],
    "appropriate_examples": ["passive sentence that works well"],
    "active_alternatives": ["suggested active voice revision"]
  },
  "show_vs_tell": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "telling_examples": ["example of telling"],
    "showing_opportunities": [
      {
        "telling_instance": "original telling sentence",
        "showing_suggestion": "how to show instead"
      }
    ],
    "effective_showing_examples": ["example of good showing"]
  },
  "cliche_redundancy": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "cliches_found": ["cliché phrase 1", "cliché phrase 2"],
    "redundancies_found": ["redundant phrase 1"],
    "overused_words": ["word used too frequently"],
    "fresh_alternatives": ["suggested replacement 1"]
  },
  "clarity_precision": {
    "score": number (0-100),
    "unclear_sentences": ["sentence that needs clarification"],
    "wordy_passages": ["passage that could be tightened"],
    "pronoun_issues": ["unclear pronoun reference"],
    "precision_improvements": ["more precise word choice suggestion"]
  },
  "improvement_suggestions": [
    "specific writing improvement suggestion 1",
    "specific writing improvement suggestion 2"
  ],
  "confidence_score": number (0-100)
}
`;

function buildDynamicPrompt(
  basePrompt: string,
  manuscriptContent: string,
  genre: string,
  wordCount: number
): string {
  return basePrompt
    .replace('${genre}', genre)
    .replace('${content}', truncateForAnalysis(manuscriptContent, 4000))
    .replace('${wordCount}', wordCount.toString());
}

function truncateForAnalysis(content: string, maxTokens: number): string {
  // Keep first 1/3, middle 1/3, and last 1/3 for representative sample
  const chunks = splitIntoThirds(content);
  const truncatedChunks = chunks.map(chunk => 
    chunk.substring(0, maxTokens / 3)
  );
  return truncatedChunks.join('\n\n[...content continues...]\n\n');
}

const FALLBACK_PROMPT_SUFFIX = `
If you cannot complete any section of this analysis, please:
1. Indicate which sections you could not analyze
2. Provide confidence scores for each section
3. Explain what additional information would help
4. Still provide scores (use 50 for uncertain areas)
`;