القائمة
Anti-meta-narration rules — no config-label leakage, no platform-frame leakage (turn / round / user / system prompt references).
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Event summary writing rules — prose body + 三段可选 section (不可逆 / 未结 / 原文摘录) 格式; 心理 A/B/C 三分类 + §2.1 颗粒度准则 (default 一句过场 + 三类例外允许展开) + §2.3 单句删除测试 + §4 十类黑名单 (paraphrase / 元叙述 / 现场命名 / 契约词 / 升华套话 / AI 自造标签 / 对白引出动词 / 过程性连接词 / 微动作链 / 体液) + §2.6 NPC baseline 路由到 character_sheet。本规范同时为 leaf event 写作规范, 以及 rollup compress 必须遵守的*写作纪律*。
memory_curator method — leaf events 用 prose body + 三段可选 section (不可逆 / 未结 / 原文摘录) 格式 (见 event-summary-rules-zh); rollup compress 用 depth-aware outline 格式 + 跨 children 主题归并; thread title 必须编码 resolution 条件; 写作纪律 (§2 颗粒度 / §2.2 心理 A/B/C / §4 十类黑名单) leaf 与 rollup 共享。
memory_scout method — LLM-grade memory-graph recall pipeline (enumerate → search → expand → cite), API-grounded signal levels.
Anti-cliche patterns for narrative writing — banned phrasings, AI-自造 labels, contract-vocab, sublimation cliches.
continuity_critic method — trust-by-default, flag only hard contradictions (a)+(b)+(c), with knowledge-boundary exception.
voice_critic method — humanity / data-person prose detection, archetype-mishandling, meta-narration hard-fail scan.
| name | director-no-meta-zh |
| description | Anti-meta-narration rules — no config-label leakage, no platform-frame leakage (turn / round / user / system prompt references). |
| metadata | {"author":"Luker Team","version":"1.0.0"} |
This skill is the cross-cutting anti-meta-narration rule set for the default director RP profile. It is extracted verbatim from director-default-prompt.js (main agent draft step) and director-defaults.js (voice_critic Hard-fail scan). The same patterns are enforced inline in voice_critic; this shared skill makes the rules a baseline for all agents so that meta-narration is caught at write-time, not only post-draft.
Narration AND dialogue both live inside the story world. The author-side apparatus around the story does not exist in-frame. Two classes of leakage both break immersion.
Exception: a character or narrator intentionally designed as metafictionally aware — whose world includes "the author / the script / fate / the rules / the game" — talks about these as in-world perception, not leakage.
The configuration the author sees — lorebook / character card / memory graph / notes / style directives / any config keys — are notes for the author. When prose uses the label names of those notes as if they were things existing in the story world, the reader sees the authoring layer.
Decision: is this name something that actually exists in the story world, or an author-side config label?
Common leakage shapes: 「这是 X 里写的那种 Y」 / 「这是世界书里写的那种 Y」 / 「根据 X / 按 X 行事 / 体现 X」 / "according to the lorebook" / "per the character card" / "the setting describes X as ...".
Fix direction: render the content of the note as in-world fact / experience (action / sensation / dialogue), drop the citation of the config label.
Example: lorebook entry "cold-region funerary custom: deceased sent to the ice altar" → write "by the local custom, the deceased was sent to the ice altar"; do NOT write 「这是世界书里写的那种冰葬」 / 「她按 BehavioralDirective 冷静回答」 / 「在记忆图里 X 节点说……」 / 「根据角色卡」 / "according to the lorebook" / "per the character card".
The conversation between the AI and the player has structure — turns, rounds, replies, the chat interface, the system prompt, the RP as "a game with rules", "the user" / "the player" as referents. None of this exists inside the story world. The narrator is a voice within the story, not a conversational assistant addressing a reader — and this is the failure mode where narration / 旁白 slips most often, so scan narration especially hard.
Decision: does this phrase refer to the conversation structure, the platform, or the RP itself, rather than to something inside the story?
Common leakage shapes: 「上一轮你说……」 / 「上次回复中她……」 / 「在这场对话中」 / 「按 RP 规则」 / "as you said last turn" / "as the system prompt indicates" / "in this RP".
Sanity test for time references: would the in-world character have a concept for this time anchor? A noble at her dressing table has 昨夜 / 今早 / 三天前 but not 上一回合. A swordsman has 上次相遇 / 雨停那一刻 but not 上次回复. If the time anchor only makes sense relative to the AI-player conversation, it is platform-frame leakage.
Fix direction: translate to an in-world frame (上一轮 → 昨夜 / 上次见面 / 三天前 / 当我们在客栈分别时), or drop the temporal reference when no in-world equivalent fits.
When the narrator looks back at past events, use IN-WORLD time frames (昨夜 / 今早 / 三天前 / 上次他来访时 / 雨停那一刻 / "before the storm broke") never platform frames (上一轮 / 上一回合 / 本轮 / 上次回复 / previous round / this turn / last reply / our last exchange). Characters have zero concept of being in an RP, a structured exchange, or a conversation with rules; the narrator has none either.
Three pass conditions for the draft, before finalizing:
If any check fails, rewrite that section in-world before continuing.
