What You Need to Know
In this certification, system-level instructions means the standing rules a person writes in plain English. These rules are in one of three places: the claude.ai settings, a Project, or, for an administrator, the organisation settings. There is no technical layer underneath.
This lesson uses one made-up example throughout: a marketing agency. One of its account managers uses Claude for client emails, campaign proposals and monthly reports. Some of her rules are true of her. Some are true of the proposals, some are true of everyone at the agency, and some are true only of this week. Two choices decide whether those rules work: where she places each rule, and how she words it.
Three Levels, Three Reaches
Each level has an owner and a reach (the conversations it applies to), and all three are documented.
- Account-wide. The claude.ai settings have a box labelled Instructions, under Settings > Your Claude (Instructions for Claude in the older Settings layout). Anything written there applies to all of your conversations. The suggested content is personal and applies across all your work, such as preferred approaches, common terms and general communication preferences.
- Project-level. Instructions defined for a Project tailor Claude's responses in that Project's chats only.
- Organisation-level. On Team and Enterprise plans, Owners and Primary Owners (the roles that administer the workspace) can set organisation instructions. Claude follows them in every conversation across the organisation.
Where levels overlap, organisation instructions take precedence. Individual instructions still apply to anything the organisation instructions do not address. An Owner's rule on email sign-offs takes precedence over her own rule on sign-offs. Her spelling rule still applies, because the organisation set nothing on spelling.
The practical point is about role, not mechanics. An ordinary member does not set organisation instructions. So if a rule should bind the whole organisation, a member asks whoever administers the workspace to add it. If she wants every colleague's drafts to omit the names of other clients, she asks the Owner to add that rule.
The Placement Question
Place every rule by asking what it is true of. A rule applies to every chat at its level, so the level should match that answer.
- True of you across all your work, such as your language, a summary first, or a non-specialist audience by default: account-wide.
- True of one body of work, its audience, its format conventions, its standing rules: that Project's instructions.
- True of everyone in the organisation: an organisation instruction, requested through the workspace Owner.
- Only true of today's job: not an instruction at any level, but part of today's prompt.
Her British spelling and her rule to put the summary first are true of all her work, so they belong in the account-wide instructions. "Show the agency fee as its own line" is true of the campaign proposals, so it belongs in that Project's instructions. This week's price rise belongs in this week's prompts.
A rule at the wrong level causes problems whether the level is too wide or too narrow. A Project rule moved to account level changes every unrelated conversation. Her agency-fee rule would appear in the monthly reports. A rule that belongs everywhere but stays at Project level has to be copied and maintained in every Project that needs it. Her spelling rule would need a copy in every Project.
Behaviour, Not Aspiration
A useful instruction is checkable: someone could see whether it was followed. "Keep each client email under 150 words" can be followed and can be failed. Claude cannot follow "Be engaging" in any way that differs from how the work would have gone anyway. That instruction names no behaviour, so there is nothing to check.
The working test for every line: could a new colleague follow this and produce what you wanted? If not, the line says what you hope for, but it is not an instruction yet. "Sound trustworthy" fails the test for her proposals. "Put the price and the agency fee in the first two lines" passes. Aspirations also make the set longer and make it look as if it covers more than it does.
Short and Prioritised Beats Long and Exhaustive
Standing instructions apply to every chat in their scope, so they should contain only what is true every time. A rule that is true of only one job distorts the other jobs. An instruction set that collects per-task detail stops describing the work. It starts to describe whichever task came last. If you put the price-rise note in the proposals Project, every later proposal mentions it until someone removes it.
Length works the same way. Claude follows a short prioritised set more reliably than a long exhaustive one. When everything is a rule, Claude cannot follow every rule equally well. The rules that Claude follows less well are not the ones you would have chosen. When a set becomes too long for a colleague to remember, cut the lines that are not true every time. Then group and prioritise the rest. Appending another rule does not fix it. Moving the set into a knowledge file (a document uploaded to the Project) does not fix it either. The move removes nothing and puts nothing in order. In a file, the rules become context that nothing tells Claude to follow in every chat. In a large Project, the search may not load them at all. A rule in the instructions applies to every chat. Lesson 5.1 explains why. Her proposals Project might group its rules under price, wording and layout, with price first.
In the exam
This objective tests those two judgements: the level a rule is true of, and wording that can be checked. The point about role matches Domain 4: escalate, do not improvise. The line between a standing instruction and today's prompt is the cleanest boundary with Domain 1. Aspirations are the typical wrong option in this objective, because "tell it to be clear and professional" always reads as sensible advice.
Key Concept
Two tests settle almost every question in this objective. Who or what does this rule apply to? The answer sets the level. Could a new colleague follow it and be checked against it? The answer sets the wording. The right answer passes both tests. Each wrong option fails exactly one.
A Note on Skills
Anthropic has deprecated the Styles menu, an older feature, and Skills now do its job. Deprecated means that Anthropic no longer recommends it. Lesson 7.3 explains what a Skill is, who can create one and turn it on, and when to use one instead of Project instructions.
Exam Traps
An aspiration written as an instruction: be professional, be thorough, produce high-quality work
Aspirations cannot be followed differently from the default and cannot be failed, so they change nothing and make the useful rules harder to follow. A checkable behaviour gives a new colleague something to follow and be checked against.
Writing this week's requirement into the standing instructions
A standing instruction applies to every chat in its scope. A rule true of one job distorts every other job until someone remembers to remove it; it belongs in that job's prompt, which is where the Domain 1 boundary sits.
Moving a long instruction set into a knowledge file so the instructions get shorter
The rules are no fewer and no better ordered. They have only moved. In a file they are context, not directions for every chat. Cut the lines that are not true every time, then group and prioritise the rest.
Placing one Project's rules at account level, or setting an organisation-wide rule personally as an ordinary member
Account-wide rules change every unrelated conversation. Organisation instructions are set by Owners and Primary Owners on Team and Enterprise plans. So an ordinary member asks whoever administers the workspace. An Owner sets the rule directly.
Practice Scenario
A team lead at a recruitment agency is writing the Project instructions for the candidate summaries the agency sends to client companies. Every line must still hold for summaries produced years from now. Which instruction set will a new colleague checking the outputs be able to use?
Build Exercise
Test and Place a Real Instruction Set
What you'll learn
- How to rewrite aspirations as checkable behaviours
- How to place each rule at the level it is true of
- How to route organisation-wide rules through the workspace administrator
- How to shorten a set until a colleague could remember it
- Take the instructions from a Project you use, or draft the set for the Project built in the 5.1 exercise
Why: The exercise needs a real set with real flaws; invented examples pass the test too easily.
You should see: The full instruction set in front of you, one rule per line.
- Apply the new-colleague test line by line: could someone follow this and produce what you wanted? Rewrite each aspiration as the behaviour you actually check for, and delete lines that restate defaults
Why: Checkability is what separates an instruction from a statement of what you hope for, and defaults restated add length without changing anything.
You should see: A set where every surviving line names something that could visibly be done or failed.
- Mark each remaining line: true of this work every time, true of you everywhere, or only true of a recent task; move the rules that are true of you everywhere to your account-wide Instructions for Claude settings and the per-task lines back into task prompts
Why: Placement is half the objective: each rule belongs at the level it is true of, and misplacement causes problems whether the level is too wide or too narrow.
You should see: Each line tagged with its level, and at least one line moved out of the Project set.
- If any rule should apply to your whole organisation, write the one-sentence request you would send to whoever administers the workspace rather than trying to place it yourself
Why: Organisation instructions are set by Owners and Primary Owners, so what you can contribute is a well-stated request.
You should see: A single sentence naming the rule and why it should bind every conversation in the organisation.
- If the surviving set is longer than a colleague could remember, group it under three or four headings and put the rules that matter most first
Why: When everything is a rule, Claude cannot follow every rule equally well. Grouping and prioritising lets you decide on purpose which rules take priority, instead of leaving it to chance.
You should see: A short, grouped, ordered set, with the rules you care most about at the top.
Sources
- Understanding Claude's personalization features — Anthropic
- Set organization instructions — Anthropic
- What are projects? — Anthropic
- How can I create and manage projects? — Anthropic
- Claude Certified Associate – Foundations Exam Guide — Anthropic