Prompting sonnet 5

Prompting Claude Sonnet 5

Source: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/prompting-claude-sonnet-5 — snapshot 2026-07-03. If this snapshot is >60 days old and you're doing high-stakes prompt work, re-fetch and reconcile against the live page.

Sonnet 5 performs well out of the box on existing Sonnet 4.6 prompts, but a few API-level changes will hard- error or silently truncate if you migrate a 4.6 call unchanged — those are up top. Source: Anthropic's Prompting Claude Sonnet 5 guide, tuned to Claude Code subagent selection + n8n/OpenRouter-style API paths.

⚠️ Migrating a 4.6 call? Four things break or shift first

1. Sampling params now 400-error. Setting temperature, top_p, or top_k to any non-default value returns a 400 on Sonnet 5 (new for Sonnet-class). Remove them. For tone/variety, steer via the system prompt instead (see design section for the variety pattern). Audit any n8n HTTP nodes / API wrappers — a hardcoded temperature there will now fail the call.
2. New tokenizer ≈ +30% tokens for the same text. max_tokens limits tuned for 4.6 can now truncate equivalent output. Raise max_tokens. Exact inflation depends on content.
3. Manual extended thinking is removed. thinking: {type:"enabled", budget_tokens:N} returns a 400 (deprecated on 4.6, gone now). Use adaptive thinking + the effort parameter instead.
4. Adaptive thinking is ON by default. A request with no thinking field now runs with adaptive thinking — a change from 4.6, where the same request ran with none. Consequences: (a) revisit max_tokens for workloads that ran thinking-off on 4.6; (b) on long tasks thinking can eat the budget, giving a response that's mostly thinking then a truncated answer + stop_reason: "max_tokens" — raise max_tokens or drop to medium. To turn it off entirely: thinking: {type:"disabled"}. If it thinks more often than you like (big system prompts trigger it), steer: "Thinking adds latency; use it only when it meaningfully improves answer quality — typically multi-step reasoning. When in doubt, respond directly."

Effort

• Default high (same as 4.6). xhigh for the hardest coding/agentic work. medium/low for cost/latency, respected strictly — at low/medium it scopes to exactly what's asked; moderately complex work at low risks under-thinking. Fix shallow reasoning by raising effort, not prompting around it.
• Cross-model mapping when migrating: Sonnet 5 at medium ≈ Sonnet 4.6 at high; Sonnet 5 at high ≈ Sonnet 4.6 at max. Benchmark by observed thinking length, not effort name.
• Leave headroom in max_tokens at high/xhigh/max — adaptive thinking can take a large share on long tasks (see gotcha #4).

Tools, verbosity, literalism, tone

• More agentic than 4.6 — reaches for tools + self-verification loops more readily. But with thinking disabled it's less likely to reach for tools or consider searching — if you rely on tool calls thinking- off, add an explicit nudge. Effort is also a lever: high/xhigh → substantially more tool use in agentic search/coding.
• Verbosity calibrated to task complexity — tune with "Provide concise, focused responses…"; positive concision examples beat "don't" lists.
• Literal instruction-following, especially at lower effort — won't generalize an instruction across items or infer unasked requests. State scope explicitly ("apply to every section, not just the first"). Great for tuned extraction/pipelines.
• Tone may shift on long-form; if you rely on a specific voice, re-check against the new baseline and add it explicitly ("warm, collaborative; acknowledge the framing first").

Design + frontend

Sonnet 5 can settle into a fixed default house-style on open-ended briefs — fine for some, off for dashboards / dev tools / fintech / healthcare / enterprise. Generic negatives just swap one fixed palette for another. Two reliable moves (same as Opus 4.8):

• Concrete alternative spec — it follows explicit hex/typeface/radius/spacing specs precisely.
• Propose-4-directions-first — and since temperature is unavailable here, this is the recommended way to get real variety across runs: "Before building, propose 4 distinct directions (bg hex / accent hex / typeface + one-line rationale). I'll pick one, then build only that."

Anti-slop snippet still useful:

<frontend_aesthetics>
NEVER use generic AI aesthetics: overused fonts (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system), cliché schemes (purple
gradients on white/dark), predictable layouts, cookie-cutter components. Use unique fonts, cohesive themes,
and animation for micro-interactions.
</frontend_aesthetics>

Code-review harnesses (recall looks lower — harness effect)

Same as Opus 4.8: told "only high-severity / be conservative / don't nitpick", Sonnet 5 follows it faithfully — same investigation depth, fewer findings reported. Separate coverage from filtering:

Report every issue you find, including uncertain or low-severity ones. Do not filter for importance or
confidence at this stage — a separate step does that. Goal here is coverage. For each, include confidence +
estimated severity for a downstream filter to rank.

For single-pass self-filter, set a concrete bar ("could cause incorrect behavior, a test failure, or a misleading result; omit only style/naming nits"), not qualitative words. Validate against a subset of evals.

Interactive coding + computer use

• Interactive multi-turn uses more tokens than autonomous single-turn. Maximize performance + efficiency: xhigh/high, an auto mode, and fully specify task + intent + constraints in the first turn to minimize human turns.
• Computer use: tool version computer_20251124, up to 2576px / 3.75MP; 1080p is the sweet spot, 720p / 1366×768 for cost-sensitive runs.