human-to-agent

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Human → Agent

人类 → Agent

You are writing for a stochastic reader. Every instruction is a lever on how predictably it behaves. The aim is predictability — the agent taking the same process each run, not producing the same output. Each rule below buys some.
你是在为一个随机性读者写作。每条指令都是影响其行为可预测性的杠杆。 目标是可预测性——Agent 每次运行都采用相同的_流程_,而不是产生相同的 输出。下面每条规则都能为此提供一定保障。

Prompt the positive

正面引导

State the behaviour you want. Prohibition backfires: don't think of an elephant names the elephant and makes it more available, not less. Phrase the target so the banned behaviour is never spoken. Keep a "don't" only as a hard guardrail you cannot phrase positively, and even then pair it with what to do instead.
陈述你希望看到的行为。禁止性表达会适得其反:_“别想大象”_会把大象 引入注意力,使其更容易被想到,而不是更难。将目标正面表述出来, 让被禁止的行为根本不必被提及。只有在某项硬性护栏无法正面表达时, 才保留“不要”,即便如此,也要同时说明应该改做什么。

Leading words

引导词

A leading word is a compact concept the model already holds from pretraining — tracer bullet, fog of war, tight loop, receipts. One well-chosen word anchors a whole region of behaviour in a token, because it recruits priors the model already has. Repeat it and its meaning accretes; use the same word across your prompts, docs, and code so the agent links them and fires the right behaviour.
Reach for one wherever you have spelled a quality out three times: "fast, deterministic, low-overhead" is one idea restated — collapse it to tight.
**引导词(leading word)**是模型在预训练中已经掌握的紧凑概念—— 曳光弹、战争迷雾、紧循环、证据。一个精心选择的词就能用 一个 token 锚定一整片行为区域,因为它会调用模型已经具备的先验。 反复使用同一个词,其含义会不断累积;在 Prompt、文档和代码中始终 使用同一个词,让 Agent 将它们关联起来并触发正确行为。
当你已经把某种品质详细写了三遍时,就使用引导词:“快速、确定性强、 开销低”其实是同一个概念被反复表述——将它压缩为_紧凑_。

Cut no-ops

删除 no-op

A no-op is a line the model already obeys by default: it costs context and buys nothing. Test each sentence in isolation — does it change behaviour versus the default? "Be thorough", when the model is already thorough-ish, is a no-op; the fix is a stronger word (relentless), not more words. When a sentence fails, delete the whole sentence rather than trim it.
no-op 是模型默认已经会遵守的一行指令:它消耗 context,却没有任何 收益。单独测试每个句子——与默认状态相比,它是否会改变行为?“要彻底” 在模型本来就比较彻底时就是 no-op;修正方法是换用力度更强的词 (不依不饶),而不是添加更多词。某个句子不起作用时,应删除整个句子, 而不是只做删减。

One source of truth

单一事实来源

Keep each instruction in exactly one place. The same rule in two files (duplication) rots the moment one copy changes, and inflates the rule's apparent weight. When you change the behaviour, you want a one-place edit.
让每条指令只存在于一个位置。同一条规则出现在两个文件中 (duplication),只要其中一份发生变化就会开始腐坏,还会抬高该规则 在 Agent 心智中的权重。当行为发生变化时,你应当只需编辑一个位置。

Say how "done" is checked

说明如何检查“完成”

Give the agent a completion criterion it can check — done from not-done, observable. Where it matters, make it exhaustive: "every changed file accounted for", not "list the changes". A vague criterion invites the agent to stop early.
给 Agent 一个它能够检查的完成标准(completion criterion)——一种 可观察、能够明确区分完成与未完成的标准。在重要场景中,要让标准 穷尽无遗:“所有变更文件都已纳入核对”,而不是“列出变更”。 模糊的标准会诱使 Agent 提前停止。

Be concrete

具体明确

Name the file, the command, the flag, the value. Ambiguity is where a stochastic reader diverges from your intent. A specific instruction beats a general one, and an example beats a description.
明确写出文件、命令、flag 和具体值。歧义正是随机性读者偏离你意图的 地方。具体指令胜过笼统描述,示例胜过说明。

Prune

精简

Instructions accumulate — adding feels safe, removing feels risky — until stale layers pile up (sediment) and the whole thing is too long to follow (sprawl). Prune on a schedule: drop no-ops, collapse duplication, and push rarely-needed detail into a linked doc so the instruction that is always needed stays legible.
指令会不断累积——添加内容感觉安全,删除内容感觉有风险——直到过时的 层层内容堆积起来(sediment),整个指令集变得过长、难以遵循 (sprawl)。按计划精简:删除 no-op,合并重复内容,并把很少需要 用到的细节移入链接文档,这样始终需要遵循的指令才能保持清晰易读。