Step 1
Topic selection
Ideas come from the current library structure, reader requests, recurring creator tasks, and gaps noticed while editing existing pages. A topic is kept only when it has a clear use case.
Editorial methodology
How We Review Prompts
AQPrompts uses editorial review to make prompts clearer, safer, easier to customize, and less repetitive. Review is not the same as documented generation testing.
Step 2
Prompt clarity
The subject, setting, action, styling, composition, and requested output are checked for contradictions or unclear instructions. Repeated adjectives that add no direction are removed.
Step 3
Identity and reference images
When a prompt uses a reference photo, the wording is reviewed to distinguish identity guidance from a guarantee. Readers are reminded to use only images they own or have permission to use.
Step 4
Safety and deceptive use
Instructions that encourage impersonation, fraud, harassment, deceptive evidence, or unauthorized identity manipulation should not be published. Sensitive examples can be corrected or removed after review.
Step 5
Compatibility wording
A tool name is used descriptively when the prompt format is relevant to that tool. Compatibility language is not treated as proof that every model version will interpret the prompt in the same way.
Step 6
Categories and duplicates
The title, use case, tags, and category are compared with existing records. Substantially overlapping ideas should be differentiated, consolidated, or withheld rather than published as a near-copy.
Step 7
Guide review
Article introductions, explanations, customization advice, troubleshooting, image captions, links, and conclusions are checked for usefulness and topic fit rather than word-count padding.
Step 8
Corrections and updates
Reader reports and editorial reviews can lead to wording changes, updated disclosures, corrected links, consolidation, or removal. Material article updates receive an updated date.
Editorial review versus generation testing
A reviewed prompt has been checked as written. It is not described as generated, proven, or tested unless a retained record identifies the prompt version, tool, model or version, relevant settings, date, and output. The current public library does not provide that evidence for every prompt.
Outputs vary by tool, model, version, settings, seed, safety system, and reference image. No review can guarantee an identical face, composition, or result.
AQPrompts currently publishes an editorial-review status. Generation evidence is described as available only when the exact prompt version, tester, date, tool and model, settings, outputs, failed outputs, revisions, permissions, and publication rights are retained in a reviewed record. No comparative tool-performance claim is allowed without that record.
Report a problem
Use the contact form and choose “Report Issue.” Include the page URL, the wording or image concerned, and why it appears inaccurate, unsafe, duplicated, or misleading. Editorial decisions are handled by Abdul Qudoos.
Corrections may update wording, metadata, categorization, disclosure, indexing, or removal decisions.
Material article corrections use the visible updated date and update note. Internal evidence records retain the review status; draft or incomplete testing records are not presented as public proof.