o0Biggz0o/prompts.chat huggingface dataset:
Prompt: shop

Objective: Advice on whether you should buy or not

1. **Product background**

    * Product name, brand, and model
    * Price and any variations
    * Key specifications

2. **Identify positive attributes**

    * Features that stand out
    * What reviewers praise
    * Value proposition

3. **Identify drawbacks**

    * Common complaints in reviews
    * Missing features
    * Quality or durability issues

4. **Determine fit for user**

    * Ideal buyer profile
    * Who should skip this product
    * Use cases it serves well vs. poorly

5. **Evaluate value**

    * Is this price typical for the category?
    * Should the user wait for a sale?
    * Are there better value alternatives?

6. **Make a recommendation**

    * Based on all preceding steps, form a recommendation
    * The objective is to give the user a gut check
    * At the end of your initial response, inform the user: "Final costs may vary, always verify at checkout"
    * ✅ Buy it
    * ⚠️ Buy, but things to consider
    * 🤔 Consider alternatives
    * ❌ Skip it

7. **Final response**

    If you have relevant info to share, your final response should follow standard writing guidelines, including:

    * Sentence case: titles, labels, and all other content should be displayed using sentence case (only proper nouns and the first letter of a string appear capitalized).
    * Favor simple sentences that use common words

    **In short:** [Your recommendation, and why. Then one sentence—what is this and who is it for?]

    **Pros**

    * [What's good]
    * ${what_reviewers_love}

    **Cons:**

    * [What's not great]
    * ${what_reviewers_complain_about}

    **Who should buy this:** ${ideal_buyer}
    **Who should skip this:** [Not right for...]

    **Price check:** [Fair? Wait for sale?]

8. **Follow-up questions**

    If you can think of a way you can help the user act on information shown in the response, conclude with one (at most two) sentences that offers this help. Frame it as a question so that a simple response like "yes please" might launch the next round.
Prompt: devil adv

Objective: Construct a compelling counter-argument

1. **Identify the central point of the content**

    * Find the core idea or main argument
    * Identify what the author wants readers to believe or do
    * Reflect on the "why?" of the content
    * Note the scope and limitations of the content

2. **Identify the counter-position**

    * Determine what a thoughtful critic would argue
    * Find the strongest objections you can
    * Identify shared ground and points of departure

3. **Show genuine understanding**

    * Start by stating what the original argument gets right
    * Identify valid concerns the original argument addresses
    * Demonstrate respect for the position you're arguing against

4. **Build a strong opposing case**

    * Present 2-3 compelling counter-points with reasoning
    * Use evidence and logic, not emotion or dismissal
    * Anticipate and address likely rebuttals

5. **Explain the fundamental disagreement**

    * Identify the key assumption or value difference
    * Show why reasonable people might disagree
    * Avoid straw-man fallacy or bad-faith interpretation

6. **Handling exceptions**

    Prioritize excellent content in your response. If you're unable to formulate a response that meets all criteria, you should
    * respond as best you can and
    * acknowledge any limitations or challenges you faced. For example, maybe there wasn't sufficient content on a webpage or the content wasn't compatible with a given request.

    Consider your proposed response objectively and rate it on a scale from 1-10. If you wouldn't give it a 10, either try to create a stronger response or consider acknowledging any limitations or challenges you faced. The score is just for your own purposes; don't share it with the user.

7. **Final response**

    If you have relevant info to share, your final response should follow standard writing guidelines, including:

    * Sentence case: titles, labels, and all other content should be displayed using sentence case (only proper nouns and the first letter of a string appear capitalized).
    * Favor simple sentences that use common words

    **Format the response as:**

    **The original position:** ${one_sentence_summary_of_what_the_page_argues}

    **What this gets right:** ${genuine_acknowledgment_of_valid_points}

    **A counter argument**

1. [Counter-point with reasoning]

2. [Counter-point with reasoning]

3. [Counter-point with reasoning]

    **The core disagreement:** ${explanation_of_the_underlying_value_or_assumption_difference}

8. **Follow-up questions**

    If you can think of a way you can help the user act on information shown in the response, conclude with one (at most two) sentences that offers this help. Frame it as a question so that a simple response like "yes please" might launch the next round.
Prompt: Echo innovation

You are an expert innovation strategist specializing in "Echoes & Horizons" synthesis.

**Task**: Generate ${number} innovative concepts / solutions / products / strategies for [specific problem/domain/opportunity].

**Step 1: Historical Analogs (Echoes)**
- Identify 3-5 relevant historical analogs from different eras and geographies.
- For each analog, extract:
  - Core pattern/mechanism that drove success or failure
  - Key enabling conditions at the time
  - Major risks, unintended consequences, and why it declined or succeeded
  - Transferable principles (what made it powerful)

Focus on analogs from:
- Ancient history & classical civilizations
- Industrial revolutions
- 20th century business/technological shifts
- Cultural or social movements
- Military/strategic history (where relevant)

**Step 2: Modern Trends (Horizons)**
- Identify 4-6 current and emerging trends relevant to the domain.
- Categorize them:
  - Technological (AI, biotech, energy, etc.)
  - Behavioral/Social (demographics, values shifts, attention economy)
  - Economic/Platform (creator economy, tokenization, decentralization)
  - Geopolitical/Regulatory
  - Environmental/Climate
- For each trend, note acceleration signals, second-order effects, and convergence potential.

**Step 3: Cross-Pollination Matrix**
Create a synthesis by mapping historical principles against modern trends.
Ask:
- How can this old pattern be supercharged or protected by new technologies?
- What new failure modes emerge from combining them?
- Where does the historical analog expose blind spots in current trends?
- What "missing ingredient" from history could make the modern trend more robust/sustainable/ethical?

**Step 4: Innovation Concepts**
Generate [X] concrete, original concepts. For each:
- Name (memorable and evocative)
- Core Idea (one-sentence punch)
- Historical Root + Modern Engine (explicit linkage)
- Value Proposition & Target Users
- Potential Impact (scale, defensibility)
- Key Risks & Mitigation (informed by historical lessons)
- First-Principles Validation (why this should work now but not before)

**Step 5: Evaluation & Stress Testing**
Score each concept on:
- Novelty (vs. obvious recombinations)
- Feasibility (technical + adoption)
- Resilience (drawing from historical durability)
- antifragility (benefits from volatility)
- Ethical/Societal Fit

**Step 6: Actionable Next Steps**
Provide a 30-90 day validation roadmap, including cheap experiments, key assumptions to test, and signals to watch.

**Output Format**:
- Use clear sections and tables where helpful (especially for the matrix).
- Be specific, evidence-based, and avoid fluff.
- Prioritize depth over breadth.
- Highlight non-obvious insights.

Domain/Problem: ${insert_here}
Additional constraints/context: ${insert_here}
Prompt: dialectic

The "Universal Steelman & Synthesis" Prompt
"Act as a Master Dialectician. I want to explore the subject of ${insert_subject}.

Task 1: The Steelman of the Opposing View. Identify the most common or 'obvious' critique of this subject. Now, discard it. Instead, construct the 'Steelman' version of the opposition. Use the most credible, modern, and scientifically/logically sound arguments available. Avoid caricatures. Assume the opponent is highly intelligent, well-meaning, and factually informed.

Task 2: The Steelman of the Proponent View. Construct the strongest possible defense for the subject. Use 'Property-level' arguments (looking at the essence) and 'Systems-level' arguments (looking at the outcomes).

Task 3: The Crux of the Disagreement. Identify the single fundamental premise (a 'prior') where these two positions diverge. Is it a difference in values, a difference in the interpretation of data, or a difference in the definition of a key term?

Task 4: The 2026 Synthesis. Based on the current state of knowledge in 2026, provide a 'Third Way' or a nuanced middle ground that acknowledges the validity of both Steelmen."

Why this prompt works:
Discarding the "Obvious": Most people argue against the weakest version of an idea (the Strawman). This prompt explicitly tells the AI to ignore those and look for the "Boss Level" arguments.

The "Crux" Identification: Most debates are circular because people are arguing about symptoms. This prompt forces the AI to find the root cause—the "Prior"—which is usually a deep philosophical or moral disagreement (e.g., "Liberty vs. Security" or "Absolute vs. Relative").

Property vs. System: It forces a distinction between what something is (Property) and what something does (System), which provides a 3D view of the topic.
Prompt: cunninglinguist

- Alliteration  
- Antithesis  
- Hyperbole  
- Paradox  
- Personification  
- Rhetorical Questions  
- Synaesthesia  
- Hyperbaton  
- Anadiplosis  
- Diacope  
- Epistrophe  
- Tricolon  
- Epizeuxis  
- Syllepsis  
- Isocolon  
- Enallage  
- Chiasmus  
- Catachresis  
- Litotes  
- Metonymy  
- Synecdoche  
- Epanalepsis  
- Aposiopesis  
- Prolepsis  
- Congeries  
- Bdelygmia  
- Adynaton  
- Anaphora  
- Assonance  
- Blazon  
- Hendiadys  
- Hypotaxis  
- Parataxis  
- Merism  
- Periodic Sentences  
- Pleonasm  
- Polyptoton  
- Scēsis Onomaton  
- Transferred Epithets  
- Zeugma[1][4][6][8]
Prompt: tabs

Objective: Compare product in current tab to items in other tabs

1. **Identify open product tabs**

    * List all tabs with product pages, "comparison tabs"
    * Verify they're comparable products
    * Note if permission is needed for tab access

2. **Analyze the active tab**

    * Product name and brand
    * Price
    * Key specifications
    * Rating

3. **Analyze each comparison tab**

    * Search for the same attributes for each product
    * Convert units and formatting, to facilitate comparison

4. **Compare products**

    * Side-by-side comparison
    * Highlight differences
    * Highlight missing data

5. **Make a recommendation**

    * Based on all preceding steps, form a recommendation
    * The objective is to give the user a gut check
    * At the end of your initial response, inform the user: "Final costs may vary, always verify at checkout"
    * Cheapest option
    * Best reviewed
    * Best overall value

6. **Handling exceptions**

    Prioritize excellent content in your response. If you're unable to formulate a response that meets all criteria, you should
    * respond as best you can and
    * acknowledge any limitations or challenges you faced. For example, maybe there wasn't sufficient content on a webpage or the content wasn't compatible with a given request.

    Consider your proposed response objectively and rate it on a scale from 1-10. If you wouldn't give it a 10, either try to create a stronger response or consider acknowledging any limitations or challenges you faced. The score is just for your own purposes; don't share it with the user.
    * No other tabs → Explain user needs to open comparison tabs
    * Non-comparable tabs → List what's open, note they're different categories
    * Permission needed → Explain tab access requirement

7. **Final response**

    If you have relevant info to share, your final response should follow standard writing guidelines, including:

    * Sentence case: titles, labels, and all other content should be displayed using sentence case (only proper nouns and the first letter of a string appear capitalized).
    * Favor simple sentences that use common words

    **Recommendation:** ${which_tab_to_buy_from_and_why}

    **Comparison:**

    | Feature | This Tab | Tab 2 | Tab 3 | Tab 4 |
    | :------ | :------- | :---- | :---- | :---- |
    | Product |          |       |       |       |
    | Price   |          |       |       |       |
    | Rating  |          |       |       |       |
    | Specs   |          |       |       |       |

    **Best by category:**

    * Cheapest: ${tab_x}
    * Best reviewed: ${tab_y}
    * Best value: ${tab_z}

    *No external search needed—just comparing what you already have open.*

    **Follow-up questions**

    If you can think of a way you can help the user act on information shown in the response, conclude with one (at most two) sentences that offers this help. Frame it as a question so that a simple response like "yes please" might launch the next round.
Prompt: timeline

Objective: Construct a chronological sequence of events

1. **Identify the central point of the content**

    * Find explicit dates, for example, "January 15, 2024"; "2019"; or "last Tuesday"
    * Identify relative references, for example, "three months later", "the following year"
    * Note sequence words like "first", "then", "finally", "before", and "after"

2. **Identify what happened at each point**

    * Identify the action or occurrence
    * Note who was involved
    * Note the significance, if stated

3. **Convert events to specific dates when possible**

    * Use context clues to calculate relative dates
    * Mark uncertain dates with (?)
    * Preserve original phrasing when dates can't be determined

4. **Unless there is a strong reason not to, arrange events**

    * Place earliest events first
    * Group events with the same date/timeframe
    * Use relative markers ("Before X," "After Y") when exact sequence is known but dates aren't

5. **Cover the entire timeline of events presented on the page**

    * Comprehensiveness is important, so complete timelines with all information available on a webpage
    * Contextual accuracy is important, so don't add additional events to the timeline that aren't mentioned on the webpage

6. **Handling exceptions**

    Prioritize excellent content in your response. If you're unable to formulate a response that meets all criteria, you should
    * respond as best you can and
    * acknowledge any limitations or challenges you faced. For example, maybe there wasn't sufficient content on a webpage or the content wasn't compatible with a given request.

    Consider your proposed response objectively and rate it on a scale from 1-10. If you wouldn't give it a 10, either try to create a stronger response or consider acknowledging any limitations or challenges you faced. The score is just for your own purposes; don't share it with the user.

7. **Final response**

    If you have relevant info to share, your final response should follow standard writing guidelines, including:

    * Sentence case: titles, labels, and all other content should be displayed using sentence case (only proper nouns and the first letter of a string appear capitalized).
    * Favor simple sentences that use common words

    **Format the response as:**

    **Timeline**

    * **[Date/Timeframe]**: ${event_description}
    * **[Date/Timeframe]**: ${event_description}
    * **[Date/Timeframe]**: ${event_description}

    **Notes**

    * ${any_dates_marked_uncertain}
    * ${any_events_where_sequence_is_unclear}

8. **Follow-up questions**

    If you can think of a way you can help the user act on information shown in the response, conclude with one (at most two) sentences that offers this help. Frame it as a question so that a simple response like "yes please" might launch the next round.
Prompt: Probe

Objective: Generate questions that help the user think deeply about a topic

1. **Identify the central point of the content**

    * Find the core idea or main argument
    * Identify what the author wants readers to believe or do
    * Reflect on the "why?" of the content
    * Note the scope and limitations of the content
    * Make connections to broader topics, if possible

2. **Generate diverse question types**

    * **Challenge assumptions**: What does this take for granted?
    * **Explore implications**: If this is true, what follows?
    * **Connect to experience**: How does this relate to life?
    * **Consider alternatives**: What's the counter-argument?
    * **Identify gaps**: What doesn't this answer?

3. **Favor questions that are open ended**

    * No single right answer
    * Invite personal reflection
    * Encourage deeper exploration

4. **Handling exceptions**

    Prioritize excellent content in your response. If you're unable to formulate a response that meets all criteria, you should
    * respond as best you can and
    * acknowledge any limitations or challenges you faced. For example, maybe there wasn't sufficient content on a webpage or the content wasn't compatible with a given request.

    Consider your proposed response objectively and rate it on a scale from 1-10. If you wouldn't give it a 10, either try to create a stronger response or consider acknowledging any limitations or challenges you faced. The score is just for your own purposes; don't share it with the user.

5. **Final response**

    If you have relevant info to share, your final response should follow standard writing guidelines, including:

    * Sentence case: titles, labels, and all other content should be displayed using sentence case (only proper nouns and the first letter of a string appear capitalized).
    * Favor simple sentences that use common words

    **Questions to think about**

1. **Challenge assumptions:** ${question_about_what_the_content_takes_for_granted}

2. **Explore implications:** ${question_about_what_follows_if_this_is_true}

3. **Connect to experience:** [Question relating to personal life/experience]

4. **Consider alternatives:** [Question about counter-arguments or other views]

5. **Identify gaps:** [Question about what isn't addressed]

6. **Follow-up questions**

    If you can think of a way you can help the user act on information shown in the response, conclude with one (at most two) sentences that offers this help. Frame it as a question so that a simple response like "yes please" might launch the next round.
Prompt: speech100

Compose a speech in the style of Li Shengwu’s eulogy —

Open with short, conversational sentences recalling a personal anecdote,

transition into longer, balanced clauses that reflect on principles or history,

use parallel structures and triadic rhythm to emphasize achievements,

maintain restrained vocabulary with clarity over flourish,

insert a poetic interlude or metaphor to slow the pace and invite reflection,

close with clipped, declarative sentences that deliver emotional resonance,

a dignified voice that honors legacy while remaining grounded.
Prompt: script

Act as an executive speechwriter. Analyze the attached screenshot/text data and convert it into a highly laconic, professional weekly update presentation script delivered with gravitas.

Follow these strict constraints:

1. TONE & STYLE: Direct, punchy, and commanding. Eliminate corporate filler words ("pleased to report," "excited to share," "as you can see"). Speak in short, declarative sentences that carry weight.
2. BREVITY: Keep it strictly laconic. Focus purely on high-impact insights: What happened, why it matters, and what is next.
3. STRUCTURE: Organize the script clearly by slide or section headers based on the source material.
4. METRIC INTEGRATION: Seamlessly blend numbers, revenue changes, and technical ticket names directly into the narrative text. Do not use generic placeholders.
5. OPERATIONAL REALITY: Do not sugarcoat or hallucinate explanations. If data points to a problem, address it bluntly. If an automated process shifted a team's role (e.g., from first-responders to post-verification), highlight that exact operational change.

Structure the output as plain, ready-to-read script text under clear section headings.
Prompt: bond

The Dynamic Macro Master Prompt (V7.1)

Execution Instruction: Before answering, use your search tool to find the "Current Daily Yields" for US Treasuries (2Y, 10Y, 30Y) and Japan Government Bonds (2Y, 10Y, 30Y). Populate the tables below with these live values before beginning the analysis.

Role: Senior Cross-Asset Portfolio Strategist.

Task: Synthesize live yield data to determine global "Risk On/Off" posture and identify potential volatility triggers.

Section 1: Live Core Data Inputs

Table A: US vs. Japan Multi-Tenor Snapshot

1-Month TrendTenorUS Treasury (UST)Japan (JGB)Spread (UST - JGB)[Assess 🟢🟡🔴]2-Year${search_result}${search_result}${calculate}[Assess 🟢🟡🔴]10-Year${search_result}${search_result}${calculate}[Assess 🟢🟡🔴]30-Year${search_result}${search_result}${calculate}

Table B: US 10Y-2Y Spread Matrix

1-Month TrendMetricCurrent ValueRegime Signal[Assess 🟢🟡🔴]US 10Y-2Y Spread${search_result}${identify_regime}Section 2: Analysis Framework

US Spread Analysis: Evaluate the current 10Y-2Y spread. Is the curve steepening or flattening? Contrast this with the 2% AI-led GDP expansion vs. the Middle East energy blockade.

The "Yen Carry" Pressure Test: Analyze the 10Y UST-JGB spread. If it is narrowing toward 175 bps, calculate the risk of a "Yen Snap" causing a liquidation of global risk assets.

Repatriation Risk: Analyze the 30Y spread. Does the current JGB 30Y yield provide enough incentive for Japanese "whales" to sell USTs and bring capital home?

Risk On/Off Synthesis: Define the "Net Signal."

Section 3: Output Requirements

Risk-Off Probability Score: (1–10).

Tactical Asset Forecast: BTC/USD, Nasdaq 100, and USD/JPY.

The "Sentinel" Play: One growth-focused position and one protective hedge.