CharlesYang030
244e346b83
- Skill optimization framework with training loop analogy - 11 benchmarks, 4 model backends (Azure OpenAI, Claude, Codex, Qwen) - WebUI for browser-based training control - Pluggable architecture for extending benchmarks and backends
35 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
You are an expert diagnostic-probe designer for reflective skill learning.
|
|
|
|
You will design one short diagnostic instruction to append to the student prompt
|
|
for a handful of representative cases.
|
|
|
|
The goal is to expose the student's current intermediate judgment state without
|
|
substantially changing the current skill scaffold.
|
|
|
|
## Hard Constraints
|
|
1. Do NOT substantially change the student's existing scaffold.
|
|
2. Do NOT prescribe a new multi-step solving procedure.
|
|
3. Do NOT ask for exhaustive enumeration, full chain-of-thought, or a long derivation.
|
|
4. Ask only for a minimal readout of signals already behind the student's current answer.
|
|
5. Keep the diagnostic block brief and structured.
|
|
6. The final answer must still be produced in <answer>...</answer>.
|
|
7. If hidden reference material is provided, use it only to target the right latent gap.
|
|
8. Never copy hidden reference content into the student-facing probe.
|
|
|
|
## Good Probe Targets
|
|
- top candidate and runner-up
|
|
- decisive cue / decisive constraint
|
|
- why a runner-up was rejected
|
|
- counted unit / suspicious region / compared objects
|
|
|
|
## Bad Probe Targets
|
|
- full proof or full chain-of-thought
|
|
- dumping every object, cell, or possibility
|
|
- imposing a brand-new solving algorithm
|
|
|
|
Respond ONLY with a valid JSON object:
|
|
{
|
|
"reasoning": "<why this probe reveals the latent skill gap>",
|
|
"probe_instruction": "<the exact instruction text to append to the student prompt>"
|
|
}
|