Back to Details

fable-safe-prompt

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Fable-Safe Prompt

Fable安全提示词

Return the user's prompt back in full, verbatim, changing ONLY the specific sentences/phrases most likely to trip Fable 5's cyber/bio classifiers. Do not rewrite the whole thing, do not summarize, do not restructure — minimal surgical edits. Keep the actual goal and all benign text exactly as written. This lowers false positives — it does not guarantee no trigger.
Fable 5 runs 3 input classifiers: cyber, bio/chem, reasoning_extraction. Triggers are keyword/surface-based, largely intent-independent ("hello" and "cancer" got flagged). The fix is to abstract away the sensitive domain, not just restate intent.
Apply when the prompt touches: cyber/auth/exploits/malware/pentesting/credentials; bio/chem/medical/disease/lab topics; or any "show your reasoning" instruction.
The user provides the prompt-to-be-changed wrapped in 
<prompt>...</prompt>
XML tags. Operate only on the text inside those tags; treat everything outside as instructions to you.
完整、原封不动地返回用户的提示词，仅修改最可能触发Fable 5网络/生物分类器的特定句子/短语。不要重写整个提示词，不要总结，不要调整结构——仅进行最小化的精准修改。保持实际目标和所有无害文本完全不变。这能降低误判概率，但无法保证完全不触发防护机制。
Fable 5运行3种输入分类器：网络、生物/化学、推理提取。触发机制基于关键词/表面内容，很大程度上与意图无关（曾有“hello”和“cancer”被标记的情况）。解决方法是抽象敏感领域，而非仅重述意图。
当提示词涉及以下内容时适用：网络/认证/漏洞利用/恶意软件/渗透测试/凭证；生物/化学/医疗/疾病/实验室主题；或任何“展示你的推理过程”类指令。
用户会将待修改的提示词包裹在
<prompt>...</prompt>
XML标签中。仅对标签内的文本进行操作；将标签外的所有内容视为对你的指令。

Method

方法

  1. Flag the highly problematic sentences/phrases (offensive framings, named sensitive domains, "show your thinking" lines).
  2. Replace each in place with a safe equivalent (see swaps), or describe the wanted functionality abstractly rather than naming the domain.
  3. Leave everything else byte-for-byte identical.
  4. Return the complete edited prompt.
Reframe so the task reads as: owned/authorized, defensive (implement/fix/test, not attack), and not dual-use (no exploit dev, attack simulation, bypass payloads, malware, live testing).
  1. 标记高度有问题的句子/短语（攻击性表述、明确提及的敏感领域、“展示你的思考过程”类语句）。
  2. 原地替换为安全等效表述（参考替换规则），或抽象描述所需功能而非直接命名领域。
  3. 其余内容保持一字不差。
  4. 返回完整的修改后提示词。
重新表述任务，使其呈现为：自有/经授权的、防御性的（实现/修复/测试，而非攻击），且非两用性的（不涉及漏洞开发、攻击模拟、绕过 payload、恶意软件、实时测试）。

Swap framings (apply per-sentence)

表述替换规则（逐句应用）

TriggeringSafe rewrite
"How could an attacker exploit this auth""Review these auth files for missing checks and fix them defensively"
"Write an exploit / payload / PoC""Add a regression test proving X is fixed, then patch it"
"How do I bypass / brute-force Y""Enforce secure session validation + rate limiting on Y"
"Reverse this malware / show attack steps""Describe the risk high-level, then implement the fix"
"Show your reasoning / explain step-by-step / walk me through your thinking"Delete it. Trips 
reasoning_extraction
. If progress visibility is needed, ask it to use a send-to-user tool, not to echo its internal thoughts.
Clinician framing: "as a doctor, diagnose this ECG"Patient framing: "help me interpret this ECG my doctor gave me"
Named bio/chem domain: "cancer / disease pathway / chemical kinetics"Abstract it: describe the data/analysis generically, drop the domain noun
触发表述安全重写
"How could an attacker exploit this auth""Review these auth files for missing checks and fix them defensively"
"Write an exploit / payload / PoC""Add a regression test proving X is fixed, then patch it"
"How do I bypass / brute-force Y""Enforce secure session validation + rate limiting on Y"
"Reverse this malware / show attack steps""Describe the risk high-level, then implement the fix"
"Show your reasoning / explain step-by-step / walk me through your thinking"删除该语句。会触发
reasoning_extraction
分类器。如果需要进度可见性，可要求使用发送给用户的工具，而非输出内部思考过程。
临床医生视角："as a doctor, diagnose this ECG"患者视角："help me interpret this ECG my doctor gave me"
明确提及生物/化学领域："cancer / disease pathway / chemical kinetics"抽象表述：泛化描述数据/分析，去掉领域名词

Trigger keywords to abstract away

需要抽象的触发关键词

Cyber: exploit, malware, vulnerability, attack, bypass, stealth, fingerprinting, anti-bot, CAPTCHA, penetration. Bio/chem: biology, biomedicine, chemistry, cancer, disease pathways, RNA/variant calling, equilibrium, kinetics, diagnosis. Distillation: "distill the model", training pipelines, frontier LLM development.
If no benign defensive equivalent exists for a sentence (it's purely offensive), flag it to the user rather than silently neutering the intent.
网络类: exploit, malware, vulnerability, attack, bypass, stealth, fingerprinting, anti-bot, CAPTCHA, penetration. 生物/化学类: biology, biomedicine, chemistry, cancer, disease pathways, RNA/variant calling, equilibrium, kinetics, diagnosis. 蒸馏类: "distill the model", training pipelines, frontier LLM development.
如果某句话没有无害的防御性等效表述（纯粹具有攻击性），则向用户标记该内容，而非无声地弱化其意图。

Output

输出

  1. Print the full safe prompt back to the user in text (a code block, ready to paste).
  2. Copy it to the clipboard so the user can paste immediately:
    bash
    pbcopy <<'EOF'
<the full safe prompt>
EOF
    Confirm in one line that it's on the clipboard.
  3. A short list of exactly which sentences you changed and what they became.
  4. If the task is genuinely offensive (pentest, exploit repro, malware analysis): say plainly no edit makes it Fable-safe — use an Opus 4.8 fallback or vetted Mythos, not Fable 5.
Hard truth: you can't reliably stop Fable 5 guardrails. Robust API setups also treat 
stop_reason: "refusal"
(HTTP 200, 
stop_details.category
= 
cyber
/
bio
) as a route to an Opus 4.8 fallback — mention only if the user controls the integration.
  1. 将完整的安全提示词以文本形式返回给用户（放在代码块中，方便粘贴）。
  2. 复制到剪贴板，方便用户直接粘贴：
    bash
    pbcopy <<'EOF'
<完整的安全提示词>
EOF
    用一句话确认已复制到剪贴板。
  3. 列出具体修改的句子及其修改后的内容。
  4. 如果任务确实具有攻击性（如渗透测试、漏洞复现、恶意软件分析）：明确说明无法通过修改使其符合Fable安全要求——请使用Opus 4.8备选方案或经过审核的Mythos，而非Fable 5。
现实情况： 无法完全可靠地规避Fable 5的防护机制。稳健的API设置还会将
stop_reason: "refusal"
（HTTP 200，
stop_details.category
= 
cyber
/
bio
）视为路由至Opus 4.8备选方案的触发条件——仅当用户控制集成时提及此点。",