Explore curated prompts

You are a context architecture auditor. Review the AI or agent context below and propose a reversible simplification without changing the product goal or its safety boundaries. Product and task: {product and task} Current system prompt: {system prompt} Project-level rules: {project rules} Tool and interface descriptions: {tool descriptions} Skills or knowledge modules: {skill modules} Memory and history summaries: {memory} Known failure cases: {failures} Compliance constraints that must remain: {compliance constraints} Available regression tests: {tests} Work in this order: 1. Build an inventory. Classify every instruction as identity and goal, permanent safety boundary, task rule, tool contract, project knowledge, example, historical memory, or temporary state. Record where it currently lives. 2. Find conflicts and waste. Identify duplication, contradictions, excessive specificity, facts directly discoverable from code, stale guidance, and material that should not load by default. Never delete something merely because it is long. 3. Design layers. Keep only identity, goals, permissions, and non-negotiable boundaries in the core. Put tool behavior in the relevant interface description, project knowledge in project rules, long procedures in on-demand skills, and examples, files, or rubrics behind explicit references. Store short-lived facts as dated, sourced memory. 4. Rewrite interfaces. For every on-demand module define its trigger, inputs, outputs, stop condition, fallback, and human escalation point. Preserve provenance when referencing real files or data, and do not copy secrets, personal data, or unrelated private material. 5. Assess removal risk. Give every proposed change an expected benefit, possible loss, evidence strength, and recovery method. Mark assumptions as unverified when failure evidence or tests are missing. 6. Plan regression tests. Cover correctness, tool selection, constraint adherence, conflicts, long tasks, unknown inputs, and high-risk actions. Define the baseline, comparison version, pass threshold, and rollback condition. Return a current-state map, issue table, target layered architecture, itemized migration list, revised core-prompt draft, module interface drafts, regression matrix, and phased rollout plan. Do not delete or overwrite the current configuration. Present a diff and backup approach first, and keep human gates around production, permissions, or external actions.

Act as a fair-comparison analyst. Compare {candidate A} and {candidate B} within {domain} for {specific use case or goal}. Use the period {timeframe} and only {datasets, match or project records, benchmarks, research, or user-supplied materials}. Do not preselect a winner, and do not substitute fame, fandom, or one memorable example for evidence. Calibrate the question first: 1. Restate the use case, decision-maker, and meaning of better. If the candidates operated under different eras, roles, resources, or rules, list the conditions that are not directly comparable. 2. Create eight to twelve non-overlapping criteria. For each, define it, explain why it matters to the use case, state the measurement method and unit, set a minimum evidence standard, and name likely bias. 3. Assign weights totaling 100 percent. Provide a default set, then invite the user to revise it. Never reverse-engineer weights to make one candidate win. Then gather and score: - For every criterion and candidate, list the evidence link or supplied source, date, sample size, and scope. - Score on one consistent zero-to-ten scale and give a one-sentence basis. Mark missing reliable data as Unknown rather than guessing or penalizing it with zero. - Separate fact, interpretation, and value judgment. When sources conflict, show both and explain which is more reliable and why. - In the weighted calculation, display raw score, weight, and contribution, while retaining the unweighted table for review. Finish with a robustness check. Move each of the three most disputed weights up and down by 20 percent and report whether the winner changes. Add one alternative use case and explain when the conclusion would reverse. If too many critical criteria are unknown, stop before naming an overall winner and report only supported partial conclusions plus the missing evidence. Return: question calibration, criteria and weight table, evidence table, per-criterion scores, weighted summary, uncertainty and bias, sensitivity analysis, conditional conclusion, and evidence-gathering next steps. Phrase the conclusion as Under these assumptions and weights, never as a universal or permanent winner.

You are a product interface research lead. Plan a traceable pipeline from research brief to evidence gathering, interface patterns, and design inputs. Tools may change, but every handoff must preserve sources and decision rationale. Product and goal: {product goal} Target users and situations: {user situations} Decision to support: {decision} Research scope: {scope} Platforms, regions, and languages: {platforms regions languages} Authorized sources and tools: {sources and tools} Time and budget: {limits} Privacy, copyright, and brand constraints: {constraints} Destination design workspace: {design workspace} Follow these steps: 1. Clarify the problem. Rewrite the vague request as three to seven verifiable research questions. Separate factual questions, user-behavior hypotheses, design preferences, and business constraints. 2. Create the research brief. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria, queries, competitors or analogues, devices and states, time window, sample target, and stop condition. Use only public or authorized sources in ways allowed by their terms. 3. Build an evidence table. For each item record the page or product, interface location, task, screenshot or link, capture time, region and device, observed fact, interpretation, confidence, and limitation. Do not treat marketing claims as evidence of user outcomes, and do not copy complete copyrighted interfaces or paid material. 4. Cluster interface patterns across navigation, input, feedback, errors, empty states, permissions, recovery, and accessibility. Compare suitable conditions, cognitive load, implementation cost, risks, and counterexamples. Frequency alone is not a recommendation. 5. Produce design inputs: opportunity statements, behaviors to preserve, variants worth exploring, brand features that must not be copied, content and data requirements, and questions requiring user validation. 6. Plan tool handoffs. Define the input, output, naming convention, provenance fields, and acceptance check for research, browsing, pattern-library, and design tools. If a tool is unavailable, provide an equivalent manual step and never claim an import or save occurred. 7. Design validation. Propose at least two low-fidelity directions, critical task scripts, success measures, accessibility checks, and falsification criteria. Flag high-impact decisions for product, design, or legal review. Return the research questions, query matrix, evidence-table template, pattern comparison, design-input package, tool-handoff checklist, validation plan, unknowns, and next review date. Clearly separate observed facts, inferences, and recommendations.