AI Guides › Claude Mastery

The Two-Pass Rule: Draft, Then Ask It To Attack Its Own Draft

By Nigel Guy · 2 min read

The typical workflow stops at the first good-looking draft. Claude produces something fluent and well-organised, it reads as finished, and "reads as finished" quietly gets treated as "is finished." The draft was never asked to survive an actual critique — it just looked like the kind of thing that would.

The mechanism: the two passes

1. Pass one: draft, without self-editing pressure. Ask for the first version plainly, without loading the prompt down with every possible caveat in advance — trying to pre-empt every flaw in the first prompt usually produces something hedged and cautious rather than something genuinely good to critique.
2. Pass two: switch roles explicitly. Ask it directly to critique the draft it just produced — as a sceptical editor, a rival, a fact-checker, whichever role fits the material — and to name specific weaknesses: what's unsupported, what's generic, what a critical reader would push back on first.
3. Ask for the critique before the fix. Get the list of problems as its own output, separate from the rewrite. A critique that arrives already bundled with a smoothed-over fix is easy to skim past without actually registering what was wrong.
4. Decide which criticisms are real before acting on them. Not every self-flagged issue is worth fixing — some are genuine, some are the model being reflexively hedgy. This judgement call stays yours.
5. Revise once, deliberately, rather than looping the critique step indefinitely — past a certain point, repeated rounds polish phrasing without changing substance, and that's a sign you're done.

What to skip

Skip asking for the critique in the same message as the original draft request — the model needs the actual draft in front of it to critique specifically, rather than critiquing a hypothetical version of what it's about to write. And skip running this twice on genuinely low-stakes, throwaway text; the two-pass rule earns its keep on anything you'll send, publish, or rely on.

What to skip in the critique itself

Skip treating "this is well-written" as a useful critique output — ask specifically for weaknesses, gaps, and unsupported claims, since a general quality judgement tends to default to politeness rather than the pointed version you actually need.

Guardrails

• Self-critique is still coming from the same model and the same conversation — it can miss a flaw it would miss in the draft itself, particularly a factual error rather than a structural one. It's a strong check, not an infallible one.
• For anything with real stakes, pair this with an independent human reviewer, not as a replacement for the self-critique pass but as a second, genuinely separate one.
• The two-pass rule improves quality and catches gaps; it doesn't verify facts on its own — run the separate verification habit alongside it for anything citing specifics.

All 751 AI guides · JulieMango plans from £17/mo