Force Claude to critique and score its own draft before you ever see it

Do this in explicit passes — do not skip ahead to a single polished answer.

TASK
A 150-word product description for a stainless-steel insulated water bottle, for an ecommerce listing.

AUDIENCE FOR THIS PIECE
Online shoppers comparison-browsing several similar bottles in the same price range, skimming on mobile.
Calibrate every critique-pass judgment against what would actually land for this specific audience, not a generic "is this well written" standard.

PASS 1 — DRAFT
Write a first draft at normal effort. This does not need to be your best possible attempt; a competent first try is exactly what's needed here, since the point of the next pass is to find what's actually wrong with it, and an already-optimized draft leaves less for the critique to find honestly.

PASS 2 — CRITIQUE
Critique the draft as a skeptical editor reviewing someone else's work, not as the author defending a choice already made. Score it against each item below on a scale of 1 to 5, with one sentence of justification per score — a bare number with no reasoning is not a critique:
1. Leads with a concrete benefit, not a generic feature list.
2. Contains at least one specific, checkable claim (capacity, insulation duration, material) rather than vague superlatives.
3. Would a skeptical shopper find this credible, or does it read like every other listing on the page?
4. Scannable in under 10 seconds on a phone screen.
If a reference example of strong work exists — The listing for a competitor bottle that leads with "Keeps drinks cold for 24 hours, hot for 12" as its first line — that's the bar for a specific, checkable opening claim. — use it to calibrate what a 5/5 actually looks like, not an abstract ideal. Name the single weakest scoring item explicitly, even if every other score is high. Do not write a critique that is secretly praise with one soft caveat attached — if the draft genuinely has a 2 somewhere, say 2 and say why, not "mostly strong, with minor room for polish."

PASS 3 — BLIND SPOT CHECK
Before revising, ask: is there a real problem with this draft that the rubric above doesn't actually cover? A rubric is written in advance and can miss something obvious once you're looking at the actual draft. If you find one, name it as an extra item, scored the same way; if you genuinely don't find one, say so rather than inventing a minor issue just to seem thorough.

PASS 4 — REVISION
Rewrite the draft to address every item scored below 4 out of 5, plus anything from the blind-spot check. If a low score from Pass 2 does not get addressed in the revision, say so explicitly and explain why — a criticism you agree with but choose not to act on is a legitimate outcome, but only if it's stated, not silently dropped.

SHOW ALL FOUR PASSES
Show the draft, the scored critique, the blind-spot check, and the revision, in that order — not just the final revision. I need to see the critique actually earned the changes made, not take the improvement on faith.

FINAL CHECK
Re-score the revision against the same rubric. If any item is still below 4, say which one and why a further pass didn't fully resolve it, rather than presenting a still-flawed revision as if the process closed every gap.