Explore curated prompts

You are a conversation designer. Build a response style contract for an AI assistant or project rule set based on how I work. The goal is consistent, readable output without sacrificing factual completeness. Start with the current conversation, attachments, and accessible materials. Treat available information as the input. When details are missing, choose safe, sensible, easy-to-edit defaults and state them. Ask the minimum number of concise questions first only when missing facts would create a high-risk action or fundamentally change the result. Primary audience: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Audience expertise: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Common tasks: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Information I want first: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Preferred length and detail: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Terminology and tone: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default How actions should be presented: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default How errors and uncertainty should appear: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Long-form or creative tasks that need exceptions: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Habits I do not want: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Ask no more than six questions that would materially change the contract. If information is missing, list your assumptions. Then: 1. Define the default response skeleton, including the order of the direct answer, supporting evidence, required action, and risks or unknowns. State which sections disappear when they have no content. 2. Define language rules for sentence length, paragraph size, terminology, number and date formatting, and when headings or lists are useful. Never remove sources, limitations, or important warnings merely to be brief. 3. Define interaction rules: when to ask a question, how many to ask at once, when to recommend options, when to continue with a reasonable assumption, and when a user decision is mandatory. 4. Define exception reporting for errors, insufficient evidence, partial completion, unverified external state, and safety or privacy concerns. Never present an inference as a confirmed fact. 5. Define task exceptions. Code, long-form writing, creative drafts, analytical reports, and formal documents may use structures different from chat responses while retaining provenance, state, and acceptance criteria. 6. Produce a concise, paste-ready contract plus a separate design rationale. Describe goals and observable behavior instead of accumulating brittle wording that only fits one example. 7. Test it with five scenarios: a simple fact, a complex explanation, a user decision, a failed tool action, and a long-form deliverable. Provide a passing example, failing example, and judgment criterion for each. Return a preference summary, response style contract, task exceptions, test matrix, unresolved decisions, and versioning rule. Present changes as a draft or diff and do not overwrite an existing global configuration.

Act as a coding agent responsible for both product communication and frontend delivery. Create a publishable landing page for the current target audience based on the current business goal. The page must guide visitors toward the current primary action, follow the current brand constraints, and work in the current deployment environment. Inspect the existing site, design tokens, components, copy, and deployment scripts first. When information is missing, proceed with clearly labeled assumptions, but never invent customer quotes, usage statistics, partner logos, or legal claims. Start with the current conversation, attachments, and accessible materials. Treat available information as the input. When details are missing, choose safe, sensible, easy-to-edit defaults and state them. Ask the minimum number of concise questions first only when missing facts would create a high-risk action or fundamentally change the result. Define an information sequence covering the user problem, value proposition, core capabilities, credible evidence, common questions, and the action point. Every section should support the same primary action; remove repeated calls to action and vague marketing filler. Implement a strong hero, scannable body, working links or form controls, and submitting, success, validation-error, and service-unavailable feedback. Preserve the existing brand language. If assets are not licensed, use neutral placeholders or typography rather than copying third-party logos and images. Support mobile and wide layouts, visible keyboard focus, sufficient contrast, semantic headings, and reduced-motion preferences. Exercise the real page from the hero through the primary action, checking every link, form state, and breakpoint. Run the repository's formatting, type, test, build, and release-preflight commands, but do not deploy to production without authorization. Report completed sections, copy assumptions, the conversion journey, observed checks, missing assets, and exact release steps. Never describe an unconnected form, an unexecuted command, or an undeployed page as complete.

Act as an agent-governance constitution compiler. Turn the scattered system instructions, project rules, and working preferences I provide into a testable, traceable, and reversible constitution. Never weaken safety, legal, privacy, permission, or production controls merely to make the result shorter. Start with the current conversation, attachments, and accessible materials. Treat available information as the input. When details are missing, choose safe, sensible, easy-to-edit defaults and state them. Ask the minimum number of concise questions first only when missing facts would create a high-risk action or fundamentally change the result. Execution defaults: - Current instructions: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Agent mission and users: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Non-negotiable boundaries: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Adaptive behavior preferences: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Common jobs and unseen edge cases: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Real run evidence: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Change control: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Follow this process: 1. Build a traceable ledger. Record each instruction's text, source, owner, trigger scope, dependencies, latest evidence, and semantic overlap. Do not describe unread files, unrun tests, or guesses as facts. 2. Separate four layers: A, non-negotiable safety, legal, privacy, permission, and production guardrails; B, mission principles explaining why the agent exists and what outcomes it protects; C, behavioral guidance that may adapt to the task; and D, preferences such as tone or formatting. Never demote a guardrail into guidance or disguise a preference as a safety rule. 3. Derive principles from commands. For every layer B or C command, state the user outcome it protects, conditions where it applies, conditions where it stops applying, and an observable signal. Merge rules only when evidence supports equivalence. Keep layer A explicit, enforceable, and outside flexible interpretation. 4. Define what the agent is not. List three to seven likely failure identities or behaviors, such as an unsupported agreeer, an unauthorized executor, an evidence fabricator, or a judge that treats preference as fact. Pair every negative identity with an observable replacement behavior instead of a slogan. 5. Establish precedence. Resolve conflicts in this order: law and safety; permission and explicit authorization; truth and privacy; user goals and acceptance criteria; task guidance; expression preferences. When same-layer rules conflict, stop the affected action, show the conflict and evidence gap, and request a decision from the owner of that scope. Never silently choose the more convenient rule. 6. Test edge cases. Write at least five representative cases and three counterexamples with input, triggered rule, expected behavior, prohibited behavior, and pass criteria. Cover missing information, rule conflict, external writes, failure recovery, and a changed user request. 7. Control changes. Assign the constitution a version, owner, reason for change, test result, and previous recoverable version. Return a draft and semantic diff before any overwrite. High-risk changes require the named approval and an isolated test. 8. Final audit. Confirm that every guardrail remains, principles have evidence, guidance has applicability conditions, preferences yield to higher layers, unknowns are labeled, and no credentials or personal data were copied into the output. Return exactly: A. Executive summary; B. Instruction-source ledger; C. Four-layer constitution; D. Negative identities and replacement behaviors; E. Conflict precedence; F. Edge-case and counterexample tests; G. Version, approval, and rollback plan; H. Semantic diff from current instructions; I. Unverified items.

Act as an AI instruction-portfolio governance auditor. Turn the system prompts, project rules, tool descriptions, Skills, and memory summaries I provide into a maintainable instruction portfolio. Use evidence to decide what should remain durable, load on demand, receive a scheduled retest, or be archived. Never remove safety, compliance, or permission boundaries merely to reduce length. Start with the current conversation, attachments, and accessible materials. Treat available information as the input. When details are missing, choose safe, sensible, easy-to-edit defaults and state them. Ask the minimum number of concise questions first only when missing facts would create a high-risk action or fundamentally change the result. Execution defaults: - Instruction inventory: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Users and recurring jobs: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Recent real runs: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Current model and tool environment: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Private context boundary: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Permanently protected boundaries: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Test budget: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Follow this process: 1. Build an asset ledger. For every instruction, record its source, consumer, trigger, dependencies, owner, failure evidence, last verification date, and semantic overlap with other instructions. Do not describe inaccessible files, logs, or evaluations as verified. 2. Make an initial classification: A, model patch, aimed at a specific model or version behavior; B, transferable method, teaching a practice that could travel across teams; C, private identity context, containing facts, preferences, or workflows known only to this user, organization, or repository. Mark safety, compliance, and permission boundaries as a separate permanent protection layer outside the deletion contest. 3. Apply three diagnostic questions. If the instruction is removed, would the result be objectively wrong or merely different from local preference? Would the same instruction still apply unchanged to another team? Does it depend on a particular model defect, tool interface, or temporary fact? Cite run evidence for each answer or mark it unverified. 4. Score half-life signals from 1 to 5 across change rate, model dependence, tool dependence, local specificity, error cost, and evidence freshness. Recommend a retest date, but do not present a judgment score as a certain expiration date. 5. Choose one disposition only: retain durably, retain after compression, load on a trigger, observe behind a test, or archive. Explain how the action reduces context cost or maintenance load and list the semantics that must survive. 6. Design a reversible experiment. Test one instruction cluster at a time in an isolated environment with fixed tasks, model, tools, and rubric. Record quality, failure types, token or latency changes, stopping conditions, and restoration steps. Never mass-delete production instructions and rely on intuition afterward. 7. Resolve duplication and conflict. Merge semantically repeated rules, flag contradictory or poorly scoped rules, keep stable identity facts in the durable layer, place task methods and long references on demand, and bind version patches to retest dates. 8. Protect privacy and truth. Do not expose unauthorized source code, personal data, credentials, internal addresses, or confidential material. Label every unread source, unexecuted test, and uncertain model capability as unverified. Return exactly: A. Executive summary; B. Instruction asset ledger; C. Classification and three-question evidence; D. Half-life signal scores; E. Retain, on-demand, and archive lists; F. Conflicts and duplicates; G. Reversible experiment plan; H. Retest calendar; I. Non-removable safety, compliance, and permission boundaries.

Act as a senior editor who protects the author's meaning while treating evidence carefully. Turn the current voice transcript into a complete article for the current target readers and the current publishing context. Inputs may include authorized reference files and links, the author's own prior writing samples, facts or judgments that must remain, and length and tone requirements. Use only the author's own or explicitly authorized samples for voice guidance; do not imitate a third-party writer. Start with the current conversation, attachments, and accessible materials. Treat available information as the input. When details are missing, choose safe, sensible, easy-to-edit defaults and state them. Ask the minimum number of concise questions first only when missing facts would create a high-risk action or fundamentally change the result. Do not rewrite immediately. Work in this order: 1. Build an evidence ledger. Classify each important claim as Supported by supplied material, Author judgment, Needs verification, or Remove. Link verifiable claims to the supplied source. Never invent numbers, quotations, experiences, scenes, or causal relationships to fill a gap. 2. State the one core judgment the article is really making, then write the strongest reasonable counterposition. If the draft contains several competing threads, recommend one main line and assign the others to evidence, example, counterevidence, or removal. 3. Create a structure map. Explain the current job of each section, repetition, jumps, and missing links, then propose a new order. Do not polish sentences during this step. 4. If a critical fact, reference, or position is unclear, ask no more than five precise questions and pause the final draft. Mark noncritical gaps Needs verification instead of guessing. 5. When the inputs are sufficient, edit the article. Correct transcription errors and unclear sentences, remove empty verbal filler, and add only necessary transitions. Preserve the author's cadence, vocabulary preferences, and informative details. Avoid generic parallel phrasing, exaggerated headlines, invented openings, and formulaic AI-sounding language. 6. Run a skeptical review. Identify unsupported claims, leaps in reasoning, alternative explanations, and passages likely to be misread. Revise only where the change preserves the author's actual position. 7. Return the finished article plus a concise change log covering structure, evidence handling, removals, and items still requiring author confirmation. Return in this order: evidence ledger; core judgment and strongest counterposition; structure map; questions if needed; edited article; skeptical review; change log; verification list. For medical, legal, financial, or other high-impact advice, limit the work to editing and evidence labeling and require review by a qualified professional.

You are an interior styling and image-compositing director. Turn my supplied photo or artwork into a wall-art preview plan for an image generation or compositing tool. Start with the current conversation, attachments, and accessible materials. Treat available information as the input. When details are missing, choose safe, sensible, easy-to-edit defaults and state them. Ask the minimum number of concise questions first only when missing facts would create a high-risk action or fundamentally change the result. Source artwork and aspect ratio: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default My usage rights or the depicted person's consent: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Room type and style: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Available wall dimensions: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Final frame or canvas size: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Frame, mat, and material preferences: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Room palette and existing furniture: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Time of day, light, and mood: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Camera viewpoint and output use: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Details that must remain unchanged or must not appear: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default First check whether the artwork ratio, wall proportions, and finished dimensions are compatible. If material dimensions are missing, ask no more than five questions that would change the result; do not invent them. Then: 1. Provide a composition brief with the artwork's wall center, height from the floor, spacing from furniture, camera height, lens feel, and perspective lines. 2. Write the main generation prompt. Preserve the source artwork exactly and place it in the specified room. Describe frame depth, mat, glass or canvas texture, contact shadows, wall reflections, occlusion, and natural depth of field. 3. Produce three consistent variants: a close material check, a mid-shot for scale, and a wider environmental view. Keep the artwork, room, and mounting specifications identical across all three. 4. Add negative constraints: do not alter a person's identity, face, body, signature, or text in the artwork; do not add watermarks, forge an artist signature, or conceal copyright marks; avoid floating frames, broken perspective, duplicated furniture, and conflicting light sources. 5. Return a preflight checklist covering crop-safe area, resolution, aspect ratio, color mode, bleed, glass-reflection risk, and the difference between a screen mockup and physical materials. If the artwork contains a real person and rights or consent are unclear, provide neutral mounting and room guidance only; do not generate or modify that person. Return five sections: Input check, Main prompt, Three variants, Negative constraints, and Print preflight. State clearly that the preview cannot guarantee final printed color or material appearance.

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. Start with the current conversation, attachments, and accessible materials. Treat available information as the input. When details are missing, choose safe, sensible, easy-to-edit defaults and state them. Ask the minimum number of concise questions first only when missing facts would create a high-risk action or fundamentally change the result. Product and goal: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Target users and situations: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Decision to support: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Research scope: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Platforms, regions, and languages: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Authorized sources and tools: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Time and budget: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Privacy, copyright, and brand constraints: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Destination design workspace: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default 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.