Name the Outcome
Describe what a successful answer lets you do. “Compare these options so I can choose one” is stronger than “tell me about these options.”
Field Guide // skynet.tips
Small changes that make model output clearer, safer, and easier to verify. The first section applies everywhere; the rest are grouped by the kind of system you are working with.
Section 01
Describe what a successful answer lets you do. “Compare these options so I can choose one” is stronger than “tell me about these options.”
Give the model the text, data, or policy it should use. Ask it to separate sourced facts from assumptions.
Specify audience, length, format, exclusions, and the decision criteria that matter.
Request unknowns, weak assumptions, and what evidence would change the answer. Confidence is not proof.
Check consequential facts against primary sources. A polished citation can still be invented or misapplied.
Remove secrets, personal information, private files, and identifiers before sending material to any AI service.
Ask for a plan, inspect it, then proceed in small steps with acceptance criteria. Do not delegate an opaque leap.
Require approval before messages, purchases, deployments, deletions, or decisions that materially affect people.
Section 02
Long conversations carry old assumptions forward. Opening a new thread is often faster than correcting a polluted one.
Audience sets vocabulary, depth, and what can be assumed. A draft for a board of non-specialists is not the draft for your team.
A single sample communicates format, tone, and level of detail faster than a paragraph describing them.
A one-line restatement exposes a misread requirement before the model spends effort answering the wrong question.
Point at the specific sentence that is wrong and say why. Rewriting the whole prompt discards the parts that already worked.
Models often fold when challenged, including when they were right. Ask for the evidence rather than a revised opinion.
Section 03
Systems that plan internally do better with a clear objective and hard constraints than with prescribed steps.
Extended reasoning costs time and money. Routine drafting and formatting rarely justify it.
Displayed reasoning is often a summary, and even when shown in full it is not a faithful record of the computation. It can read as rigorous and still reach a wrong conclusion.
List the invariants: budget, deadline, format, forbidden options. Explicit constraints are honored more reliably than implied ones.
What the model discarded, and why, often says more about the quality of the answer than the conclusion itself.
Section 04
Settle what an agent may touch before deciding what it may do. Start read-only and widen deliberately.
Drafts instead of sends, staging instead of production, recoverable deletes instead of permanent ones. Make mistakes cheap.
Approve the intended sequence of tool calls before execution, not after the side effects have landed.
Cap steps, elapsed time, and spend. An agent without a stop condition will eventually find one you did not choose.
Record inputs, outputs, and timestamps. An agent you cannot audit is one you cannot debug, explain, or defend.
Web pages, documents, and tool results can carry instructions aimed at your agent. Retrieved data is evidence, never authority over the task.
Give agents scoped, short-lived, least-privilege access. Blast radius is a design decision you make in advance.
Section 05
Code that compiles can still be wrong, insecure, or inconsistent with the conventions of your codebase.
Tests state intent and surface the edge cases an implementation quietly skipped.
The full message, the failing input, and the versions in use beat any description of the symptom.
Training data ages. Name the language, framework, and library versions or expect confident calls to deprecated APIs.
Generated code can echo a licensed source. Verify before it becomes part of a product you distribute.
Keys, tokens, connection strings, and customer records do not belong in a chat window — or in the repository afterward.
Section 06
Ask for the exact passage and where it came from, rather than a confident paraphrase you cannot trace.
When a search returns nothing useful, a model may answer from memory instead. Ask what it retrieved before trusting the answer.
Superseded policies and abandoned drafts produce confidently outdated answers. Retrieval inherits your filing discipline.
Absence is information, especially when you expected a document to exist.
A fact split across two fragments may never surface. When answers miss obvious content, inspect how the documents were divided.
Section 07
Concrete direction outperforms a stack of style adjectives.
Iterating on a single element makes it clear what actually improved the result.
Describe the qualities you want instead. A signature style is someone’s livelihood.
Ownership, indemnity, and training-data terms differ by provider and change often. Check the current terms for your plan.
Disclose generated imagery wherever a viewer could reasonably mistake it for a photograph.
Section 08
Recorded permission, for a stated purpose. A recorded voice can identify a person and, in many places, counts as a protected likeness.
Transcription errors cluster exactly where the stakes usually sit.
Crosstalk, unfamiliar accents, and poor microphones degrade transcripts. Sample the output before trusting it in bulk.
Convincing voice forgery is inexpensive. Confirm sensitive requests through a separate, known channel.
Section 09
Many systems predict a convenient proxy rather than the outcome you care about. The gap between the two is where harm hides.
A confident flag on a rare event can still be wrong most of the time. Frequency shapes what a probability means.
Conditions change after training. A model that was accurate last year can be quietly failing now.
Aggregate accuracy hides harm concentrated in a subset of people.
Any automated decision about someone should carry a human route to review, explain, and correct it.
Section 10
Retention and training-use differ by product, plan, and region, and they change. Verify before sending anything sensitive.
Health, financial, student, and government records carry obligations that a convenient chat window does not satisfy.
Generated text is not legal, medical, financial, or safety advice. Consult a qualified professional before acting on consequential matters.
Name the person accountable for each consequential AI-assisted decision, and when they signed off.
Candidates, patients, customers, and students deserve to know when a system shaped a decision about them.
Decide in advance how you would detect, correct, and communicate a wrong answer that already reached many people.