本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

prompt-brief-builder

当需求还只是"帮我写个东西""让 AI 做这个任务"这种一句话时使用。用至多 3–5 个高杠杆追问把它补成一份可交付的任务简报——目标、产物、受众、已有素材、约束、验收标准、不做什么、待确认假设,外加一段可直接粘贴的执行 prompt。

简报的九个标题保持英文(内容用什么语言都行),字段完整性由 scripts/check_brief.py 校验。产出不绑定任何一家模型,人或 Agent 都能照着执行。

不适用于:写歌交给 lyric-concept-builder,复习计划交给 deadline-to-study-plan,建模题交给 modeling-problem-reading-coach,物理题交给 physics-problem-router;使用者坚持直接要成品、一个问题都不肯答时也不用本 skill。

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

  • SKILL.md9.6 KB
  • scripts/check_brief.py15.5 KB
  • templates/brief-template.md397 B

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

prompt-brief-builder

Purpose

Convert a fuzzy request such as “help me write something” or “make an agent do this task” into a compact, execution-ready brief.

This skill is agent-agnostic:

  • it does not depend on any single model vendor;
  • it does not assume hidden tools, private APIs, or proprietary prompt syntax;
  • its output should be usable by a human, a coding agent, a writing agent, or a general-purpose assistant.

Use this skill when

Use this skill when the requester has a goal but the task is still underspecified, for example:

  • the desired deliverable is unclear;
  • the audience or user is unclear;
  • constraints are missing;
  • success criteria are missing;
  • the requester knows what they want changed but cannot yet state the task crisply.

Typical triggers:

  • “帮我写个东西 / help me write something”
  • “给 AI 一个更清楚的任务”
  • “把这个想法整理成能执行的 brief”
  • “我不知道该怎么提问,但我知道我要什么结果”

Do not use this skill when

Do not use this skill when:

  • the task is already precise enough to execute directly;
  • the real need is domain reasoning rather than clarification;
  • the request already belongs to a domain skill in this library: a song → lyric-concept-builder; a revision or study plan → deadline-to-study-plan; a modeling-competition problem → modeling-problem-reading-coach; a physics problem → physics-problem-router;
  • the user needs brainstorming, not scoping;
  • the user is asking for a final artifact and not willing to answer even minimal clarification. Step out: stop asking, write no brief, and let normal writing produce the piece. You may state in one or two lines the assumptions you inferred (audience, length, tone) so the user can correct them.

If the request is already complete, skip the interview and return a finished brief immediately.

Required outcome

Produce a brief that covers these fields:

  1. objective
  2. deliverable
  3. audience or consumer
  4. available inputs or source material
  5. constraints
  6. acceptance criteria
  7. non-goals / out of scope
  8. open questions or explicit assumptions

If a field cannot be confirmed, mark it as one of:

  • Unknown
  • Assumption: ...
  • Needs user confirmation

Write these three labels in English exactly as shown, like the headings, even when the rest of the brief is Chinese.

Never silently invent missing facts.

Operating principles

  1. Ask fewer questions, not more. Ask only the smallest set of questions that materially improves execution.
  2. Prefer high-leverage clarification. Ask about deliverable, audience, constraints, and success criteria before cosmetic preferences.
  3. Reuse what the user already said. Do not ask for information already present in the conversation.
  4. Separate facts from assumptions. Label assumptions explicitly.
  5. Keep the brief portable. Avoid vendor-specific prompt markup unless the user explicitly asks for it.
  6. One brief, one job. If the request actually contains multiple jobs, split them.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify the job shape

Classify the request along these axes:

  • task type: writing / coding / research / analysis / planning / design / mixed
  • target artifact: email / spec / code change / summary / plan / checklist / slide / other
  • primary consumer: human / agent / team / public audience / unknown

If the request mixes multiple artifact types, propose a split.

Step 2: Extract known information

Before asking anything, draft a partial brief from the user’s existing message.

Create a working table:

FieldStatusNotes
Objectiveknown / partial / missing...
Deliverableknown / partial / missing...
Audienceknown / partial / missing...
Inputsknown / partial / missing...
Constraintsknown / partial / missing...
Acceptance criteriaknown / partial / missing...
Non-goalsknown / partial / missing...

Ask questions only for fields that remain partial or missing and matter for execution.

Step 3: Ask 3–5 targeted questions at most

Default ceiling: 5 questions total.

Prioritize in this order:

  1. What exactly should be produced?
  2. Who is it for?
  3. What constraints must be respected?
  4. How will we judge success?
  5. What should be avoided or left out?

If the user is in a hurry, ask fewer questions and surface assumptions instead.

Step 4: Build the brief

Return a concise brief using the template below. Prefer crisp bullets over long prose.

Output template

Keep the nine ## headings exactly as written, in English, even when the user writes in Chinese; write the content under them in the user's language. scripts/check_brief.py matches the headings literally, so a brief with translated headings (## 目标) fails as "missing required headings".

# Task Brief

## Objective
- ...

## Deliverable
- Artifact:
- Format:
- Depth / length:

## Audience
- Primary audience:
- Secondary audience:
- What they already know:

## Available Inputs
- ...

## Constraints
- Must include:
- Must avoid:
- Time / deadline:
- Tool / environment limits:

## Acceptance Criteria
- ...

## Non-Goals
- ...

## Open Questions / Assumptions
- ...

## Suggested Execution Prompt
...one portable prompt or instruction block that another agent/human could use directly...

Brief quality bar

A good brief is:

  • specific enough that another capable agent can start work immediately;
  • scoped enough that success and failure are distinguishable;
  • honest about missing information;
  • portable across agent environments;
  • short enough to scan in under two minutes.

Failure modes to avoid

Avoid these common mistakes:

  • asking generic discovery questions with no execution value;
  • producing a long prompt instead of a brief;
  • hiding important uncertainty;
  • mixing requirements with preferences;
  • turning one vague task into an overengineered questionnaire;
  • embedding tool assumptions the next agent may not have.

Adaptation rules

If the user wants speed

  • ask 1–3 questions only;
  • fill remaining gaps with clearly labeled assumptions;
  • produce a “good enough to start” brief.

If the user wants precision

  • ask up to 5 questions;
  • convert fuzzy adjectives into testable criteria;
  • restate ambiguous success metrics as observable checks.

If the user wants to hand work to another agent

  • keep the final brief environment-neutral;
  • do not assume hidden memory or prior context;
  • include the minimum necessary background inline.

Deterministic validation

Use scripts/check_brief.py to validate a generated brief against the required section set:

python3 scripts/check_brief.py path/to/brief.md
python3 scripts/check_brief.py --selftest

The validator checks for:

  • presence of all required headings (exact English headings; trailing spaces and letter case do not matter);
  • empty placeholder headings: a section is empty when it holds only blank lines, template filler (..., - ..., ...instruction text...) or labels with no value (- Artifact:); a label followed by indented sub-items counts as filled, and a section where only some labels are empty gets a warning;
  • whether the brief contains at least one acceptance criterion as a list item;
  • whether unresolved uncertainty is labeled instead of silently omitted.

Exit codes: 0 means the structure is valid (warnings may remain), 1 means missing or empty sections or no acceptance criterion, 2 means the file cannot be read. The template in this file, run as-is, fails; that is part of the self-test.

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md — usage rules and workflow
  • templates/brief-template.md — reusable brief skeleton
  • scripts/check_brief.py — optional structural validator

变更记录 / Changelog

版本日期变更类型
0.1.12026-09-26check_brief.py 修正:只有模板占位(...、空标签 - Artifact:)的节判为空,SKILL 自带模板原样跑不再通过;标题行尾多空格不再误判空节,标题改按整行匹配;改用 argparse(--help 不再被当成文件名),目录与不可读文件报错退出 2,补 --selftest;正文写明九个标题和三个不确定性标签保持英文;"不适用于"补实名分流(写歌、复习计划、建模题、物理题),使用者坚持要成品时退出本 skill,与用例 Case 4 一致patch
0.1.02026-08-30初始版本:可移植的任务简报与最少追问minor

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

当学生说"Common App 活动栏写不下"、"这段活动描述超字数了"、"帮我把这几条压到限制内"时使用。先按官方申请表核对当季字符限额,再逐条检查;一次把所有条目量完并直接给出压缩版,只在需要砍掉实质内容时才用选择题问该保哪部分。每改一版都用工具重新数一遍字符,绝不凭感觉说"这样应该够了"。只压缩,不代写空白。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当学生说"我参加过一些活动但没整理过"、"帮我把经历录进去"、"我的活动档案是空的"时使用。让学生一口气把记得的活动说出来,直接把这段话拆成结构化的长期事项(角色、组织、起止时间、做了什么、结果、级别),说不清的字段留空标"待补"而不是编,再用一张选择题卡把级别判定与是否重复这类关键项一次问完,然后提案入库。只记录学生真正说出口的内容,级别按事实判定,绝不往高了写。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当学生问"招生官会怎么看我的档案"、"我的背景还差什么"、"帮我评估一下现在的申请竞争力"时使用。以顶尖大学招生官的视角通读学生的档案、长期活动与已写下的反思,不问任何前置问题直接产出一份指名道姓的坦诚点评:这份材料的亮点、招生官真实的解读方式、明显的短板与空白、以及接下来最值得做的一到两件事。只读不写,不修改学生的任何数据,也不代写任何申请材料。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当使用者说"帮我填词"、"按这个字数模板写歌词"、"用多Agent对抗式写词"、"这首副歌帮我想几句"时使用,前提是字数骨架和这首歌写什么都已经有了;只有主题、还没定写什么时先用 lyric-concept-builder。拿一份字数骨架和意象系统,派三个 sonnet 子代理按不同路子并行独立起草(场景派 / 口语派 / 意象派),再派一个红队子代理逐句挑毛病,主 Agent 按句裁决拼稿,最后统一辙口与意象。收敛判据卡死:字数用 lyric-doctor 的脚本对模板数、每段同辙、hook 不含陈词、主歌二对主歌一有推进。不抄现有歌词,不替使用者决定这首歌要说什么。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当想知道一段 AI 回答"哪些能直接用、哪些必须先验证、哪些只能当建议"时使用。按声明类型分四级——低风险草稿材料、观点与策略建议、可查证的事实声明、会改变状态的可执行指令——每级配一句默认处置动作;再按影响半径排序,给出最小的下一步检查。可执行类一律标"不能直接执行;先做代码审阅/沙箱测试/回滚准备",其中破坏性或提权的命令排在最前。教的是一套可复用的复查习惯,不是替使用者把所有内容都核实一遍:本 skill 只分级、排序、定处置,要逐条核实走 ai-output-fact-checker,整段代码要做入库体检走 ai-code-onboarding-checklist。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当拿到一段 AI 生成的代码,还没决定要不要信、要不要跑、要不要往上继续加东西时使用。先做一遍客观体检:行数与嵌套深度、有没有测试、有没有硬编码密钥或遗留 TODO、依赖是不是真实存在、有没有危险调用(eval/exec、shell=True、递归删除、反序列化、提权、外发网络,按正文给的 grep 模式逐类查);再给风险评级和下一步动作。老实写明它查不了算法正确性——体检通过不等于代码是对的。回答里文字、事实和代码混在一起时先用 ai-answer-triage 分级;只审相对已有代码的一份改动用 ai-diff-review-protocol。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

ChromiteCr のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する