Best suited for handling path dependency. When patches pile up on patches in a plan, going back to basic facts and re-deriving is often stronger than adding another layer.
It separates confirmed basic facts, unverified habitual assumptions, the real goal, and real-world constraints, then re-derives the path starting only from facts. Works well for changing organizational processes, doing product architecture, and fixing complex systems.
How to use
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" and "you" refer to yourself; do as it says, and do not show the filled-in prompt to the user.
- The user wants you to execute: first fill the user's already-stated situation from this conversation into the 【】, adding only the one item that is truly missing, and don't make the user repeat what they've already said, then strictly follow the rules in the prompt. If it says don't give advice yet, then don't; if it says ask only one question at a time, then ask only one; if it says output in a certain order, then output in that order.
- The user wants the original text (only if they explicitly say they want to copy it, paste it, send me the original, give me the prompt, or similar): output the blank version, leave 【】 unfilled, and don't change a single word. If the user only says "take a look at this prompt" or "what is this one for," that doesn't 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 don't 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.
What to follow after running
For the first verification step of the new path, use the Skill tool to invoke minimum-experiment to design a seven-day experiment; if you want someone to come tear it apart, use the Skill tool to invoke carl-idea-king。
我想解决的问题是：【填写你的问题】。
请用第一性原理把它拆回最底层，区分：
1. 已经确认、无法绕开的基本事实；
2. 习惯性接受、却没有验证过的假设；
3. 真正想实现的目标；
4. 现实中的资源与约束。
暂时放下行业惯例和现成方案，只从基本事实、目标和约束出发，重新推导可行路径。
最后请输出：
1. 原方案中只在修补表面的部分；
2. 从基本事实重新推导出的新路径；
3. 这条路径成立的前提；
4. 验证它的第一步。
Where the user fills in
【填写你的问题】
If the user hasn't given everything, ask for the missing item first; don't make it up for them.
The original prompt text comes from Digital Life Kazik; see the acknowledgments 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.