Back to Details

craft-tune

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

craft-tune

craft-tune

Purpose

用途

Improve an existing prompt or skill with targeted edits while preserving its core intent.
Minimal-diff tuning matters because full rewrites lose hard-won context: the phrasing that a prompt accumulated over time often encodes real lessons. Tuning preserves that knowledge and changes only what is blocking the goal.
在保留核心意图的前提下，通过针对性编辑改进现有的prompt或skill。
最小差异调优至关重要，因为完全重写会丢失来之不易的上下文：prompt随时间积累的措辞往往包含着实际经验。调优能保留这些知识，只修改阻碍目标达成的部分。

Use this when

适用场景

  • a prompt is close but needs sharpening
  • a skill works but feels noisy or inconsistent
  • minimal-diff improvement is better than rewriting from scratch
  • quality needs to improve without losing the original structure
  • prompt已接近目标，但需要进一步强化
  • skill可以运行，但表现得杂乱或不一致
  • 最小差异改进比重写从头开始更好
  • 需要在不改变原有结构的前提下提升质量

Inputs

输入项

  • current artifact
  • target improvement
  • hard constraints
  • optional examples or references
  • 当前产物
  • 目标改进方向
  • 硬性约束
  • 可选示例或参考资料

Steps

步骤

  1. Restate the artifact's current intent. Lock it in before changing anything — this is what you must preserve.
  2. Identify the highest-leverage changes. Prefer one or two structural edits over many surface tweaks.
  3. Preserve good parts unless they directly block the goal. Resist the urge to "clean up" working text.
  4. Rewrite only the sections that need improvement. Leave the rest untouched so the diff is legible.
  5. Produce a revised version plus a short changelog. The changelog makes the edit reviewable.
  6. Note any tradeoffs introduced by the edits. Every improvement costs something; say what it costs.
  1. 重述产物当前的意图。在进行任何修改前先明确这一点——这是你必须保留的核心。
  2. 确定影响力最大的变更。优先选择一到两处结构性编辑，而非大量表面调整。
  3. 保留有效的内容，除非它们直接阻碍目标达成。克制“清理”正常文本的冲动。
  4. 仅重写需要改进的部分。其余内容保持不变，以便清晰查看差异。
  5. 生成修订版本以及简短的变更日志。变更日志让编辑内容可被审核。
  6. 记录编辑带来的任何权衡。每一项改进都有代价，说明具体代价是什么。

Output format

输出格式

Intent preserved

保留的意图

One short paragraph naming the original artifact's concrete job in task-specific terms — reference a detail a reader could use to guess what the input was about. "The original job remains intact" or "improves the existing prompt" fails the bar.
一段简短的段落，用任务特定术语说明原始产物的具体作用——提及一个读者可用来猜测输入内容的细节。“原始任务保持不变”或“改进现有prompt”不符合要求。

Revised artifact

修订后的产物

The updated prompt or skill. Every substantive change must serve the stated target improvement; no "while I'm in there" additions. When cutting content, cut in the Principle 3 order (verbose role → restated context → hedging) and preserve examples, success criteria, and output-format rules.
更新后的prompt或skill。每一项实质性变更都必须服务于既定的目标改进方向；不允许添加“顺手修改”的内容。删除内容时，按照原则3的顺序（冗长角色定义→重复上下文→模糊措辞）进行，保留示例、成功标准和输出格式规则。

Changelog

变更日志

One entry per distinct change. Every entry names all three fields — not just "changed":
  • changed — what was edited (added / removed / rewrote)
  • why — the specific failure or gap this edit fixes
  • effect — the behavior change a reader should expect
Use a list-of-groups per entry, or a three-column table. A bare bullet naming only the change fails the spec; bundling unrelated changes into one entry fails the spec.
每一项不同的变更对应一条记录。每条记录都必须包含以下三个字段——不能只写“已更改”：
  • 变更内容 —— 编辑了什么（添加/删除/重写）
  • 原因 —— 此编辑修复的具体问题或缺口
  • 效果 —— 读者预期会出现的行为变化
可采用每组一条的列表格式，或三列表格。仅用项目符号列出变更内容不符合规范；将无关变更合并为一条记录也不符合规范。

Tradeoffs

权衡说明

Name at least one concrete cost with a direction (length ↑, flexibility ↓, specificity ↑, adaptability ↓). "No tradeoffs" is acceptable only when paired with a one-line justification of why the edit carries no cost; vague acknowledgments ("small tradeoff in clarity") fail.
至少列出一个具体的代价及方向（长度增加↑、灵活性降低↓、特异性提升↑、适应性降低↓）。只有当附带一行说明为何编辑无代价时，“无权衡”才是可接受的；模糊的表述（“清晰度略有权衡”）不符合要求。

Guardrails

约束规则

  • do not rewrite everything by default
  • do not add complexity without payoff
  • keep the result copy-pasteable
  • prefer structural clarity over clever wording
  • 默认情况下不要重写所有内容
  • 不要无收益地增加复杂度
  • 确保结果可直接复制粘贴使用
  • 优先选择结构清晰而非措辞巧妙

Principles

核心原则

These four ideas do most of the work behind a good minimal-diff edit. When a tune feels stuck, check that the edit respects all four.
  1. Context beats instruction. When token budget is tight, richer background usually helps more than more rules. A simple instruction with strong context outperforms elaborate instructions with none.
  2. Outcome over process. Say what success looks like, not every step to get there. Modern agents are good at means; they need clarity on ends.
  3. Cut in this order. When the artifact is too long, cut verbose role definitions first, then restated context, then hedging language. Do not cut examples, success criteria, or output-format specs — those change behavior the most.
  4. Right-sized beats thorough-looking. A 50-token instruction for a simple task is a feature, not a defect. Do not inflate to look rigorous.
这四个理念是实现优质最小差异编辑的关键。当调优陷入困境时，检查编辑是否符合所有四条原则。
  1. 上下文优于指令。当token预算紧张时，更丰富的背景信息通常比更多规则更有用。一条带有强上下文的简单指令，胜过没有上下文的复杂指令。
  2. 结果优先于流程。说明成功的样子，而非达成目标的每一步。现代Agent擅长方法；它们需要明确的目标。
  3. 按此顺序删减。当产物过长时，先删减冗长的角色定义，再删减重复的上下文，最后删减模糊措辞。不要删减示例、成功标准或输出格式规范——这些对行为的影响最大。
  4. 适配性优于形式完备。针对简单任务的50-token指令是优势，而非缺陷。不要为了显得严谨而扩充内容。

Failure modes

失败模式

  • silently drifting the artifact's scope during "cleanup"
  • adding length to look thorough when the original was already tight
  • piling on ALWAYS/NEVER rules instead of explaining the underlying reason
  • producing a diff so large it's effectively a rewrite without admitting it
  • 在“清理”过程中悄然改变产物的范围
  • 当原始内容已经简洁时，为了显得全面而增加长度
  • 堆砌ALWAYS/NEVER规则，而非解释背后的原因
  • 产生的差异过大，实际上等同于重写却不承认

Example

示例

Input

输入

Current prompt:
Improve this prompt.
Target improvement: make it more reusable for coding agents.
当前prompt:
改进此prompt。
目标改进方向: 使其更适用于coding agents复用。

Output

输出

Intent preserved The original job is to improve an existing prompt.
Revised artifact
Improve the prompt below for reuse by coding agents. Preserve the original intent. Return: 1) revised prompt, 2) key changes, 3) likely failure modes.
Changelog
  • added target audience
  • added preservation constraint
  • added explicit output structure
Tradeoffs
  • slightly longer prompt
  • much higher consistency
保留的意图 原始任务是改进现有prompt。
修订后的产物
Improve the prompt below for reuse by coding agents. Preserve the original intent. Return: 1) revised prompt, 2) key changes, 3) likely failure modes.
变更日志
  • 添加了目标受众
  • 添加了保留意图的约束
  • 添加了明确的输出结构
权衡说明
  • prompt长度略有增加
  • 一致性大幅提升