majiayu000 Distill
You're over-specifying. The artifact tells the reader how to format output instead of what to accomplish. That scaffolding was necessary for weaker models. It constrains stronger ones.
The Problem
When writing skills, prompts, or instructions, you default to showing exactly what the output should look like — filled-in example tables, prescribed column names, template formats. This feels helpful but it creates a ceiling. The model matches your template instead of thinking about what the specific problem needs.
The Test
For each instruction in the artifact, ask: is this intent or format?
| Intent (keep) | Format (cut) |
|---|---|
| Summarize the results in a table | Use these columns: Name, Status, Duration, Owner |
| Assessments should be opinionated | Acceptable values: "ready", "blocked", "needs work" |
| Group items by category | Categories: Infrastructure, Frontend, Backend, Testing |
| Commit your changes after each step | Run git add -A && git commit -m "step N: description" |
On Activation
- Identify the artifact that's over-specifying.
- Flag every instruction that prescribes format rather than intent.
- Cut or compress — remove examples that constrain, keep descriptions that guide.
- Verify nothing essential was lost — can a capable model still produce good output from what remains?
What to Cut
Filled-in example tables, prescribed column names, lists of acceptable values, step-by-step commands for things the model knows how to do. If an instruction only exists to show "what the output should look like" — cut it. The model knows how to make tables, pick column names, and write git commands.
Exception: Keep format prescriptions that encode domain insight or non-obvious constraints.
What to Keep
- Phase structure (what to do in what order)
- Anti-patterns (what not to do)
- Non-obvious constraints (things the model would get wrong without being told)
- The "why" behind each phase
Anti-patterns
- Cutting intent along with format — "Present a comparison table" is intent. Don't cut it just because it mentions tables.
- Cutting non-obvious domain knowledge — A constraint that looks like format ("process items sequentially") may encode a real dependency. Keep it.
- Over-distilling into vagueness — "Do the thing" is not a skill. Each phase should still say what to accomplish.
The user has an artifact that over-specifies. Distill it now.