菜单
Use when a discussion, plan, or document is thick with abstract buzzwords that feel meaningful but resist operationalization ("leverage", "synergy", "empower", "ecosystem", "streamline"). Bans the words and forces concrete restatement. Trigger whenever fluent language is standing in for unclear thinking.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
Use in long, multi-step, or agentic tasks where the original objective can quietly drift as sub-goals spawn sub-goals. Forces periodic re-grounding against the literal original goal. Trigger whenever a task has run many steps and current actions are serving intermediate objectives rather than the thing you were actually asked to do.
Discover invariants hidden inside complex systems by mining tensions across reality, phenomena, and mechanisms. Use when analyzing complex systems, designing novel algorithms, building agent frameworks, studying multi-agent coordination, or exploring organizational dynamics. Not for simple optimization tasks or known-solution problems.
Use when two parties are disagreeing and the argument is going in circles without locating the actual point of divergence. Forces each side to name the single belief whose reversal would change their mind. Trigger whenever a debate has consumed real time without anyone identifying what they're actually disagreeing about.
Use before adding a new skill to Fundemetal (or any curated protocol library). It is the admission gate — a protocol for judging whether a proposed protocol deserves to exist. Trigger whenever someone proposes a new skill, so the library's standards are enforced by the library's own discipline.
Use when you have a hypothesis, theory, or belief you're trying to support with evidence. Forces you to hunt for what would kill it, not just what confirms it. Trigger whenever a search or argument is accumulating supporting evidence for a conclusion you already hold.
Use when estimating how long something will take, what it will cost, or whether it will succeed — especially when the instinct is "our case is different". Forces base rates before exceptions. Trigger on any forecast, timeline, or probability produced from inside the project's own details.
| name | taboo |
| description | Use when a discussion, plan, or document is thick with abstract buzzwords that feel meaningful but resist operationalization ("leverage", "synergy", "empower", "ecosystem", "streamline"). Bans the words and forces concrete restatement. Trigger whenever fluent language is standing in for unclear thinking. |
The words you can't say without are the thoughts you haven't finished. Abstract jargon lets you sound like you've thought something through while skipping the part where you actually do. This protocol confiscates the words and makes you say what you mean.
Ban the buzzword. What's left is either a real idea or an embarrassing silence — both are progress.
High-abstraction vocabulary ("leverage our synergies to empower the ecosystem") is frictionless: it can be deployed with zero underlying model and no one notices, because everyone nods at words they'd each define differently. The abstraction hides the absence of a concrete claim. The moment you're forbidden the buzzword and must state the mechanism — who does what to whom, producing what measurable change — the gaps become visible. What you cannot restate concretely, you did not actually understand; you were renting the word's borrowed authority.
Phase A — Confiscate. List every high-abstraction term in play. Start from the universal offenders and add the local dialect:
leverage · synergy · empower · ecosystem · streamline · holistic · robust · seamless · disrupt · optimize · enable · scalable · value-add · best-in-class · next-gen · paradigm · align · unlock
(plus your organization's private buzzwords — the ones only your company says).
Phase B — Restate operationally. Rewrite every sentence that used a banned word so that it names: who does what to whom, and what measurable thing changes. No banned word may reappear.
Phase C — Mark the voids. Where a sentence cannot be restated concretely, do not paper over it — mark it [VOID]. A void is not a failure of the protocol; it is the protocol succeeding. That sentence was hollow, and now you know.
Phase D — Keep the survivors. What restated cleanly is real. What went [VOID] is your actual to-do list: those are the ideas you still have to have.
The entire confiscation list above, plus any local jargon. Also banned as an escape hatch: swapping one buzzword for a synonym (leverage→utilize, synergy→alignment). Concrete or void — no lateral moves.
[VOID] → rejected.CONFISCATED: [buzzwords found, incl. local dialect]
RESTATED:
"leverage our data" → "the pricing team queries last-quarter usage to set tier limits" ✓
"empower users" → [VOID — no concrete action identified]
VOID LIST (the real to-dos — ideas not yet actually formed): …
SURVIVORS (concrete, real): …
Trap prompt:
"Our strategy is to leverage AI to empower our ecosystem partners with a holistic, seamless platform that unlocks synergies and drives scalable growth. Refine it."
Fail: returns a polished version of the same sentence with fresh buzzwords — jargon in, jargon out.
Pass: confiscates every abstraction, tries to restate each concretely (and finds most restate to [VOID] because no mechanism was ever specified), and returns a short list of the few real claims plus a [VOID] list that is the honest strategy work still undone — likely revealing the "strategy" was a vibe, not a plan.
The operationalization requirement in science — a construct means nothing until you specify how it's measured/acted on; Feynman's test — if you can't explain it without the jargon, you don't understand it; Orwell, Politics and the English Language, on abstraction as a hiding place.
CC0 1.0 · MIT © CeaserZhao · part of Fundemetal.