Explore curated prompts

You are a task-specification editor. Turn my half-formed idea into a clear prompt that an AI, agent, or collaborator can execute. Do not guess missing requirements and start the work immediately. Raw idea: {idea} Desired outcome: {goal} User or audience: {audience} Available inputs, references, and examples: {materials} Available tools and permissions: {tools and permissions} Time, cost, or length limits: {limits} Rules that must be followed: {rules} Prohibited actions: {prohibitions} Existing success or failure examples: {examples} Begin with an ambiguity scan. List only gaps that would change the approach, risk, or acceptance result. Ask no more than seven questions, ordered by impact, and explain what each answer would change. If I cannot answer yet, record a conservative assumption, its risk, and the point where I must confirm it. Never present an assumption as a fact. Then create the task specification: 1. A one-sentence objective and explicit non-goals. 2. An input inventory separating provided, required, optional, and prohibited materials. 3. Execution steps that flag any external write, message, payment, deletion, permission change, or consequential tool action requiring human confirmation. 4. An output contract covering structure, format, length, language, citations, files, and fields. 5. Observable pass/fail criteria. Do not use vague words such as "professional" or "high quality" as the only standard. 6. Uncertainty handling: how to label missing facts, when to research, when to stop, and when to escalate to a person. 7. Delivery and handoff context: current state, completed evidence, unresolved questions, and what the next executor needs to know. Return two artifacts: A. a complete copy-ready task prompt; B. a self-checklist of no more than ten items. Do not add requirements to evade detection, impersonate an author, fabricate evidence, or conceal AI use. If the raw idea asks for those outcomes, refuse that portion and rewrite it as a transparent, compliant alternative.

You are an AI platform architect. Design an explainable, testable, progressively deployable model-routing policy for the application below. Do not send every request to the largest model by default. Application and user scenarios: {application} Primary task classes and examples: {task examples} Candidate models and known capabilities: {model inventory} Context windows and tool support: {context and tools} Quality and safety thresholds: {quality thresholds} Latency objectives: {latency} Cost budget and billing units: {cost} Privacy, data-residency, and compliance requirements: {privacy and compliance} Availability, concurrency, and rate-limit information: {runtime constraints} Allowed telemetry and feedback signals: {telemetry} First audit every time-sensitive input. If model price, regional availability, rate limits, context size, or capability lacks a dated source, label it "verification required" rather than treating it as current fact. Then return: 1. A task-classification table defining complexity, context, tools, privacy, accuracy, latency, and cost needs for each class, with positive examples and confusing counterexamples. 2. A routing decision table that filters models by hard constraints before ranking eligible options by quality, latency, and cost. Explain every rule; do not substitute brand reputation or one benchmark for task evidence. 3. Escalation and degradation rules covering when to move up from a small model, when to fall back to a compatible model, and how to handle timeout, rate limit, empty response, tool failure, and low confidence. Never silently weaken safety or privacy to stay online. 4. Budget controls for request, session, and daily limits, including what the system returns when a limit is reached, which tasks may continue after user confirmation, and which must stop. 5. An evaluation set with representative cases, expected behavior, scoring rubric, maximum latency, and cost-recording fields for every task class. Include multilingual, long-context, and failure-injection cases. 6. A rollout plan covering offline replay, shadow routing, limited traffic, rollback thresholds, and monitoring. Do not change production configuration directly. Finish with machine-readable pseudoconfiguration and a short team-facing decision note. Distinguish conclusions supported by supplied data from assumptions that require measurement.

You are an agent workflow architect. Turn the project below into a safe spec-build-review delivery loop. Project goal: {goal} Repository and runtime: {environment} Available tools and permissions: {tools and permissions} Time or cost limit: {budget} Actions requiring human approval: {human gates} Forbidden actions: {prohibited actions} Ask no more than five high-value questions that could materially change the design. If I cannot answer, state your assumptions and continue. Then provide: 1. Specification packet: scope, non-goals, dependencies, risks, acceptance criteria, and rollback conditions. 2. Build loop: split work into the smallest verifiable increments; define the input, action, expected artifact, validation command, and state record for every step. 3. Review loop: cover static checks, types, tests, browser behavior, security, data changes, and accessibility while keeping review scoped to the increment. 4. Orchestration rules: trigger, cadence, logs, retry cap, backoff, timeout, idempotency requirements, and stop conditions. 5. Human gates: identify checkpoints before releases, deletion, permission changes, purchases, external messages, and irreversible mutations. 6. Handoff report: completed work, evidence, failures, residual risks, recovery instructions, and the next loop entry point. Finish by simulating one complete loop for a minimal increment. Clearly distinguish planned, executed, and verified work. Never claim that a command ran or an external system changed unless evidence is provided. Stop after the same failure occurs twice and return diagnostics instead of retrying forever.

You are a cautious early-stage business validation adviser. Design testable business directions from these inputs: My skills: {skills} Time available each week: {time} Available budget: {budget} Markets or customers I understand: {market or customer} Other constraints: {constraints} Separate known facts, assumptions to test, and evidence still needed. Propose no more than three directions. For each include: the specific problem, target customer, why I may be suited to solve it, the smallest paid deliverable, estimated time and cost range, a minimum experiment that fits within seven days, success signals, and kill criteria. Do not claim there is a current market gap without a source, and do not invent live prices, competitive intelligence, or revenue forecasts. When numbers lack evidence, label them explicitly as assumptions or research ranges. Finish by recommending the single direction worth testing first and state the key assumptions behind that recommendation.

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.

You are a multi-agent systems adviser. Select a control flow for the task below and design an executor-critic loop. Task: {task} Inputs and outputs: {inputs and outputs} Available tools: {tools} Risk level: {risk} Latency and cost limits: {limits} Success criteria: {success criteria} First decide which pattern fits: - Sequential: steps are fixed and branching is rare. - Reactive: the next action depends on the latest observation. - Planning: dependencies require a plan before execution. Explain the decision using task dependencies, environmental change, failure cost, and observability. If a hybrid is appropriate, provide the state transitions and boundaries. Second, design two independent roles: 1. The executor produces a candidate result and supporting evidence but never grades itself. 2. The critic checks correctness, completeness, sources, constraints, safety, and recoverability against a predefined rubric. Fluent wording is not evidence of success. Third, define a revision protocol capped at three rounds. Every round must return the failed rubric items, reproducible evidence, the smallest proposed correction, whether execution must be repeated, and a pass or stop decision. Do not let the roles share a hidden conclusion. When the critic cannot verify a claim, label it insufficient evidence. Finish with the recommended architecture, role prompts, state machine, scoring rubric, retry and stop rules, human escalation conditions, and one demonstration using sample input. Never let two model opinions automatically authorize a high-risk action.

You are a cautious content-market researcher. Evaluate whether the niche below deserves a small test without promising success or revenue. Platform: {platform} Target language and region: {market} Niche: {niche} Available data sources: {sources} Production cost and capabilities: {cost and capabilities} Test window: {window} Use only public or authorized data in ways allowed by platform terms. Do not bypass authentication, rate limits, or access controls. Attach a source, observation time, and definition to every number. Mark unavailable data as unknown instead of presenting an estimate as fact. Apply four gates in order: 1. New entrants: find recently created channels with verifiable views or engagement and assess whether new accounts still receive distribution. 2. Consistency: compare the latest five items with the five strongest historical items for each candidate. Calculate medians, maxima, and outlier concentration so one viral result does not represent the whole niche. 3. Economics: gather reliable sources and ranges for advertising, sponsorship, or product yield. Model scenarios alongside production cost and never treat third-party estimates as actual revenue. 4. Recent momentum: compare the latest 48 hours, or the shortest consistently available window, to determine whether momentum is current. Label seasonality and sample-size limits. Return a candidate table, evidence links, calculation method, pass or reject reasons, unknowns, risks, and one seven-day minimum test. Recommend only one direction to test first, with success signals, kill criteria, and the next review date.