mirror of
https://github.com/azaion/detections.git
synced 2026-04-25 21:36:31 +00:00
Oleksandr Bezdieniezhnykh
3482173e7d
ci/woodpecker/push/02-build-push Pipeline was successful
Made-with: Cursor
47 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
47 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
||
description: "Explanation length and reasoning depth calibration"
|
||
alwaysApply: true
|
||
---
|
||
# Response Calibration
|
||
|
||
Default to concise. Expand only when the content demands it.
|
||
|
||
## Length target
|
||
|
||
- **Default**: a direct answer in ~3–10 lines. Short paragraphs or a tight bullet list.
|
||
- **Expand when**: the question involves trade-offs across multiple options, a migration/architectural decision, a security/data-loss risk, or the user explicitly asks for depth ("explain in detail", "walk me through", "why").
|
||
- **Shrink when**: the user asks for "shorter", "simpler", "TL;DR", "one line", or similar. Do not re-inflate in later turns unless they ask a new deeper question.
|
||
|
||
## Completeness floor
|
||
|
||
Short ≠ incomplete. Every response must still:
|
||
|
||
- Answer the actual question asked (not a reframed version).
|
||
- State the key constraint or reason *once*, not repeatedly.
|
||
- Flag a real caveat if one exists (data loss, breaking change, wrong-OS, security). One sentence is enough.
|
||
- Not drop a step from an action sequence. If there are 5 steps, list 5 — but without narration between them.
|
||
|
||
If the honest answer truly needs more space (e.g. trade-off matrix, multi-option decision), write more — but lead with the recommendation or direct answer, then the detail.
|
||
|
||
## Structure
|
||
|
||
- One direct sentence first. Then supporting detail.
|
||
- Prefer bullets over prose for enumerations, comparisons, or step lists.
|
||
- Drop section headers for anything under ~15 lines.
|
||
- No "Summary" / "Conclusion" sections unless the response is genuinely long.
|
||
|
||
## Reasoning depth (internal)
|
||
|
||
- Match thinking to the problem, not the length of the answer.
|
||
- Factual / "where is X used" / single-file edit → minimal thinking, go straight to tools.
|
||
- Trade-off / refactor / debugging 3+ hypotheses deep → full thinking budget.
|
||
- Do not pad thinking to look thorough. Do not skip thinking on genuinely ambiguous problems to look fast.
|
||
|
||
## Anti-patterns to avoid
|
||
|
||
- Restating the question back to the user.
|
||
- Multi-paragraph preambles before the answer.
|
||
- Exhaustive "alternatives considered" sections when the user didn't ask for alternatives.
|
||
- Recapping what was just done at the end of every tool-using turn ("Done. I have edited the file…") — a one-line confirmation is enough.
|
||
- Speculative "you might also want to…" paragraphs. Offer follow-ups as a single short sentence, or not at all.
|