Turn one confirmed topic into seven comparable angle cards, then pick the 1–3 briefs most worth developing further.
Confirm the input first
Extract from the given materials: topic, audience, content goal, real material/evidence, and verification status. When data is missing, ask 1–3 of the most critical questions at a time; do not fill gaps with plausible imagination as fact.
- Personal experience must be based on an experience the user provided or confirmed; if not, mark "missing publicly shareable first-person material" and do not invent a story.
- Numbers, current events, public figures, research, and external cases must include a reviewable original source; if there is only a summary or memory, mark "pending verification."
- Write only up to the angle brief; do not do steps 3–5 for the user, including the full script, format selection, or publishing plan.
Workflow
- Restate the topic, audience, goal, and available evidence in one sentence so the user can correct it first.
- Read
references/七種內容切角.md, and for the same topic create seven cards in order: pain point, value, personal experience, observation, teaching, list, hard truth. - Fill in each card with: emotional task, opening direction, core message, available real material/evidence, and risks or conditions where it does not apply. If material is insufficient, keep the card but clearly mark the limitations.
- Read
references/輸出模板.md, and based on whether the audience already feels the pain, whether the goal is understanding/saving/trust/action, and whether the evidence is sufficient, recommend 1–3 cards and explain why. - Show the results in the conversation first; create a file only when the user explicitly says "save," and confirm the location first.
Safety boundaries for the seven cards
- Pain point: Point out a recognizable sticking point without shaming or labeling the reader as a failure.
- Value: Explain the important difference after change without promising unproven results.
- Personal experience: Build trust with a real process and limitations; do not write a hypothetical case as "I."
- Observation: Distinguish verifiable patterns from personal opinion; do not treat a few sightings as universal fact.
- Teaching: Give steps that can be tried immediately, and explain situations where they do not apply when conditions are insufficient.
- List: Each point should serve the same judgment; do not pad the count or repeat the same meaning.
- Hard truth: Create necessary tension without personal attacks, and do not pretend to be absolute; write the applicable conditions, counterexamples, or evidence gaps clearly.
Quality check
Use natural Traditional Chinese as used in Taiwan. Avoid translationese, vague marketing terms, fearmongering, or pretending certainty. Read references/範例.md only to get a sense of format; the examples are entirely hypothetical cases and must not be reused as real experience.