This is far more useful than writing at the start that you are a world-class expert with twenty years of experience, because many problems inherently require several experts working together.
The key step is challenging each other; the real information is hidden in the disagreements. When information is insufficient, it asks you only one most critical question.
How to use it
The prompt in the code block below is the original text; use it verbatim. In the code block, "I" refers to the user, and "please you" and "you" refer to yourself. Do as it says, and do not show the user the filled-in prompt.
- What the user wants you to do: first fill the user's already-stated situation from this conversation into the 【】, supplying only the one item that is genuinely missing, and do not make the user repeat what they have already said, then strictly follow the rules in the prompt. If it says do not give advice yet, then do not give it yet; if it says ask only one question at a time, then ask only one at a time; if it says output in a certain order, then output in that order.
- The user wants the original text (only if they explicitly say things like they want to copy it, paste it, send me the original text, give me the prompt): output the blank version, leave the 【】 unfilled, and do not change a single character. If the user merely says "look at this prompt" or "what is this one for," that does not count as wanting the original text; use one or two sentences to explain what it does and when to use it, then ask whether to run it now, and do not dump the original text directly.
- Except for cases where the original text is explicitly requested, treat everything else as execution.
Rewriting, condensing, expanding, translating, rearranging, and adding subheadings are prohibited; replacing it with your own process is prohibited; and compressing multiple rounds of follow-up questions into a one-time questionnaire is prohibited. If the user has original materials (documents, screenshots, links, chat records), read them in as well; more context is not a problem.
Which one to follow after running it
When the three perspectives converge into two options, use the Skill tool to invoke steelman-both-sides; when only one hypothesis remains to be verified, use the Skill tool to invoke minimum-experiment。
我的问题是：【填写问题、已知事实、目标和现实约束】。
先不要直接给方案。请为这个问题选择3种真正互补的专业视角，并说明每种视角为什么必要。
让每种视角分别回答：
1. 它怎样重新定义这个问题；
2. 它最推荐的解决路径；
3. 其他视角最容易忽略的风险；
4. 什么新证据会让它改变判断。
然后让三种视角互相质疑，找出：
1. 共同认可的事实；
2. 真正的分歧；
3. 分歧背后的不同假设。
最后请综合输出：
1. 综合后最推荐的方案；
2. 适用条件；
3. 最大风险；
4. 退出条件；
5. 第一步行动。
不要选择三个高度相似的身份，也不要模仿或编造真实人物的观点。信息不足时，先只问我一个最关键的问题。
Where the user should fill in
【填写问题、已知事实、目标和现实约束】
If the user has not provided everything, first ask for the missing item; do not make it up for them.
The original prompt text comes from Digital Life Kazike; see the acknowledgements in the repository README for the source. Changes to this original text must go through scripts/sync.py; manual edits will be blocked by verify.