---
id: wiki-2026-0508-be-detailed
title: Be Detailed (Specificity Principle)
category: 10_Wiki/Topics
status: verified
canonical_id: self
aliases: [구체화, specificity, prompt detail, requirement specification, edge case enumeration]
duplicate_of: none
source_trust_level: B
confidence_score: 0.85
verification_status: applied
tags: [communication, prompt-engineering, requirements, spec, detail, edge-case, anti-vague]
raw_sources: []
last_reinforced: 2026-05-10
github_commit: pending
tech_stack:
  language: communication / spec
  applicable_to: [Prompt Engineering, RFC, Spec Writing, Bug Reports]
---

# Be Detailed (Specificity Principle)

## 📌 한 줄 통찰
> **"매 devil 의 detail"**. 매 abstraction 의 hide X — 매 number, 매 context, 매 edge. 매 prompt engineering 의 single biggest lever — 매 vague "make it good" → 매 hallucination, 매 specific "max 50 words, 매 active voice" → 매 reliable.

## 📖 핵심

### 매 specificity tool

#### 1. Quantification
- ❌ "매우 빠름"
- ✅ "p99 < 100ms"
- ❌ "큰 file"
- ✅ "100MB 이상"

#### 2. Contextualization
- ❌ "login button"
- ✅ "centered modal with email + password + social OAuth (Google, Apple), max-width 400px"

#### 3. Edge case enumeration
- 매 happy path 의 X.
- 매 empty / null / overflow / unicode / negative / boundary.
- 매 concurrent / partial failure / network split.

#### 4. Negative spec
- "should NOT" 의 explicit.
- 매 boundary 의 clarify.

#### 5. Acceptance criteria
- 매 verifiable.
- 매 Given-When-Then.

### 매 spec hierarchy

#### Vague → Specific
1. "Make it user-friendly"
2. "Reduce form fields"
3. "Reduce checkout from 6 fields to 2 (email, payment)"
4. "Reduce checkout from 6 fields to 2 (email, payment), keep address auto-fill via Stripe Address Element, A/B test 50/50 for 2 weeks"

→ 매 step 4 만 의 actionable.

### 매 prompt engineering 의 detail

#### 매 vague (bad)
> "Write me a poem"

#### 매 specific (good)
> "Write a 4-line haiku about autumn leaves.
> Format: 5-7-5 syllables.
> Tone: melancholic.
> No rhyming required.
> Output: poem only, no explanation."

→ 매 hallucination ↓, 매 reliability ↑.

### 매 RFC / spec format
1. **Motivation**: 매 why.
2. **Detailed design**: 매 how.
3. **Drawbacks**: 매 cost.
4. **Alternatives**: 매 other approaches.
5. **Unresolved questions**: 매 known gap.
6. **Future work**: 매 next.

### 매 bug report (specific)
- 매 reproducer (minimum case).
- 매 expected vs actual.
- 매 environment (OS, browser, version).
- 매 logs / stack trace.
- 매 frequency (always / 50% / random).
- 매 impact.

### 매 over-detail risk
- 매 over-spec: 매 implementation 의 lock-in.
- 매 micro-management: 매 creativity X.
- 매 outdated detail: 매 maintenance.
- 매 reader 의 cognitive overload.

→ 매 right level 의 abstraction.

### 매 progressive disclosure
- 매 summary first.
- 매 detail on demand.
- 매 README → 매 ADR → 매 code.

## 💻 패턴

### Specific prompt template
```
ROLE: Senior backend engineer.
TASK: Refactor function X.
CONTEXT:
- Current: throws on error.
- Codebase: TypeScript, neverthrow library.

CONSTRAINTS:
- Keep public signature unchanged.
- Return Result<T, E>.
- Add unit test for both branches.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Code only, no explanation.
- TypeScript with neverthrow.

EXAMPLE OUTPUT (for similar task):
[paste example]

INPUT:
[code]
```

### Acceptance criteria (Given-When-Then)
```gherkin
Feature: Login
  Scenario: Valid credentials
    Given a registered user with email "user@example.com"
    And password "Pass123!"
    When they submit the login form
    Then they are redirected to /dashboard
    And a session cookie "sid" is set with HttpOnly and Secure flags
  
  Scenario: Invalid password
    Given a registered user
    When they submit invalid password 5 times in 1 minute
    Then they are rate-limited for 15 minutes
    And a 429 status is returned
```

### Bug report template
```markdown
## Reproducer
1. Login as user@example.com
2. Click "Export CSV" on /reports/123
3. CSV downloads but contains BOM + wrong encoding

## Expected
UTF-8 without BOM (matches docs).

## Actual
UTF-16 with BOM. Excel opens it but Numbers crashes.

## Environment
- macOS 15.2
- Chrome 130.0.6723
- App version 1.42.3 (commit abc123)

## Frequency
100% — every export since deploy on 2026-05-08.

## Impact
~200 users daily affected. Workaround: open in Excel.

## Logs
[paste]
```

### RFC template (short)
```markdown
# RFC-0042: Adopt Kafka for events

## Motivation
3 services need async coordination. Sync HTTP causes cascade.

## Detailed design
- Events: Avro schema.
- Topic: domain.event_type.v{version}.
- Retention: 7 days.
- Consumer group per service.

## Drawbacks
- Operational complexity (Kafka cluster).
- Async debugging harder.

## Alternatives
1. RabbitMQ — simpler, less throughput.
2. SQS — vendor lock-in, less ordering.

## Unresolved
- Schema registry choice.
- DLQ strategy.

## Future
- Stream processing (Flink).
```

### Edge case checklist (function spec)
```
For function process(input):

Empty:
  [ ] input = null
  [ ] input = undefined
  [ ] input = ''
  [ ] input = []
  [ ] input = {}

Boundary:
  [ ] input.length = 0
  [ ] input.length = 1
  [ ] input.length = MAX_INT
  [ ] input.length = MAX_INT + 1

Type:
  [ ] input = number (expected string)
  [ ] input = string (expected number)
  [ ] input = function

Special:
  [ ] Unicode (emoji, RTL, combining)
  [ ] Negative numbers
  [ ] NaN, Infinity
  [ ] Concurrent calls
  [ ] Network failure mid-call
```

## 🤔 결정 기준
| 상황 | Detail level |
|---|---|
| Prompt to LLM | Maximum (constraint + example + format) |
| Spec / RFC | High (motivation + design + alternatives) |
| Bug report | High (repro + env + frequency) |
| README | Medium (BLUF + 30s pitch) |
| Slack message | Low (concise) |
| Architecture diagram | Layered (C4) |

**기본값**: 매 audience + 매 task 의 calibrate. 매 vague 의 default 의 X.

## 🔗 Graph
- 부모: [[Articulateness]]
- 변형: [[Edge-Case-Enumeration]]
- 응용: [[Prompt_Engineering|Prompt-Engineering]] · [[RFC]]
- Adjacent: [[Progressive-Disclosure]] · [[ADR]]

## 🤖 LLM 활용
**언제**: 매 LLM prompt. 매 spec 작성. 매 bug report. 매 design review.
**언제 X**: 매 brainstorm (premature specificity). 매 creative explore.

## ❌ 안티패턴
- **"매 user-friendly"** without metric: 매 unmeasurable.
- **No edge case**: 매 production crash.
- **Over-spec**: 매 implementation lock-in.
- **No reproducer in bug**: 매 wasted reviewer time.
- **No acceptance criteria**: 매 "done?" 의 ambiguous.
- **No example in prompt**: 매 LLM 의 guess.

## 🧪 검증 / 중복
- Verified (Pragmatic Programmer, RFC tradition, prompt engineering best practice).
- 신뢰도 B.
- Related: [[Articulateness]] · [[Prompt_Engineering|Prompt-Engineering]] · [[Spec-Writing]] · [[Edge-Case]].

## 🕓 Changelog
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 |
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — specificity tool + prompt template + bug report + RFC + edge case checklist |
