Back to Details

li-recorder

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

选题诊断 + 记录系统

Topic Diagnosis + Recording System

诊断选题值不值得做，值得做才记录，同时举一反三推荐相似方向。
Diagnose whether a topic is worth doing, record it only if it is, and recommend similar directions by drawing inferences.

工作流程

Workflow

第一步：诊断选题值不值得做

Step 1: Diagnose whether the topic is worth doing

对用户提供的选题做四个维度的快速判断：
维度 1：认知落差
  • 这个选题，同行已经讲清楚了吗？
  • 你能带来什么别人带不来的东西？（第一人称数据、独特经历、不同角度、时效性）
  • 结论：✅ 有明显落差 / ⚠️ 落差较小 / ❌ 无落差（同质化）
维度 2：受众真实痛点
  • 这个选题试图解决观众的什么问题？
  • 这个问题是真实存在的，还是创作者假设存在的？
  • 结论：✅ 痛点真实 / ⚠️ 痛点模糊 / ❌ 伪需求
维度 3：内容可执行性
  • 创作者有没有做这个内容的第一手素材？（数据、经历、工具使用记录）
  • 没有素材就没有内容，不是选题的问题，是内容没法做。
  • 结论：✅ 素材充足 / ⚠️ 素材有限 / ❌ 没有素材
维度 4：选题前提
  • 这个选题隐含了什么假设？
  • 这个假设成不成立？（比如「大家都知道 X 工具」这个假设可能不成立）
  • 结论：✅ 前提成立 / ⚠️ 前提需要验证 / ❌ 前提不成立，选题需要重构
Make a quick judgment on the user-provided topic from four dimensions:
Dimension 1: Cognitive Gap
  • Has this topic been clearly explained by peers?
  • What unique value can you bring that others can't? (First-person data, unique experiences, different perspectives, timeliness)
  • Conclusion: ✅ Obvious gap / ⚠️ Small gap / ❌ No gap (homogenization)
Dimension 2: Real Audience Pain Points
  • What problem does this topic attempt to solve for the audience?
  • Is this problem real, or is it assumed by the creator?
  • Conclusion: ✅ Real pain point / ⚠️ Vague pain point / ❌ False demand
Dimension 3: Content Executability
  • Does the creator have first-hand materials for creating this content? (Data, experiences, tool usage records)
  • Without materials, there is no content. This is not a problem with the topic, but that the content cannot be created.
  • Conclusion: ✅ Sufficient materials / ⚠️ Limited materials / ❌ No materials
Dimension 4: Topic Premise
  • What assumptions does this topic imply?
  • Is this assumption valid? (For example, the assumption "everyone knows Tool X" may not hold)
  • Conclusion: ✅ Valid premise / ⚠️ Premise needs verification / ❌ Invalid premise, topic needs restructuring

第二步：给出诊断结论

Step 2: Provide Diagnosis Conclusion

输出格式：
undefined
Output format:
undefined

选题诊断：[选题名]

Topic Diagnosis: [Topic Name]

维度结论说明
认知落差✅/⚠️/❌[具体说明]
受众痛点✅/⚠️/❌[具体说明]
可执行性✅/⚠️/❌[具体说明]
选题前提✅/⚠️/❌[具体说明]
总结：[值得做 / 调整后值得做 / 不建议做] — [一句话理由]

**三种结论的处理方式**：

- **值得做**：直接进入第三步（记录 + 举一反三）
- **调整后值得做**：说明怎么调整，询问用户「按这个方向调整后记录吗？」，用户确认后进入第三步
- **不建议做**：直接说明原因，不做记录，但仍然进入第三步提供替代方向

---
DimensionConclusionExplanation
Cognitive Gap✅/⚠️/❌[Specific explanation]
Audience Pain Points✅/⚠️/❌[Specific explanation]
Executability✅/⚠️/❌[Specific explanation]
Topic Premise✅/⚠️/❌[Specific explanation]
Summary: [Worth doing / Worth doing after adjustment / Not recommended] — [One-sentence reason]

**Handling methods for the three conclusions**:

- **Worth doing**: Proceed directly to Step 3 (Recording + Drawing inferences)
- **Worth doing after adjustment**: Explain how to adjust, ask the user "Shall we record it after adjusting in this direction?", and proceed to Step 3 after user confirmation
- **Not recommended**: Directly explain the reason, do not record it, but still proceed to Step 3 to provide alternative directions

---

第三步：记录选题（值得做时）

Step 3: Record the Topic (When it is worth doing)

将选题追加写入 
01-内容生产/选题管理/00-选题记录.md
的 
## 📝 待深化选题
区域末尾。
记录格式：
- [ ] [选题名] - [一句话描述，用用户原话，不润色]
写入后告知用户已记录成功。
Append the topic to the end of the 
## 📝 Topics to be Deepened
section in 
01-Content Production/Topic Management/00-Topic Records.md
.
Recording format:
- [ ] [Topic Name] - [One-sentence description, use the user's original words, no polishing]
Inform the user that the recording is successful after writing.

第四步：举一反三推荐相似选题

Step 4: Recommend Similar Topics by Drawing Inferences

无论诊断结论是什么，都基于用户提供的这个想法方向，举一反三推荐 3-5 个相似但不同角度的选题：
  • 同一话题，不同切入角度（工具教程 → 工具背后的原理 / 工具对比 / 用错了会怎样）
  • 同一场景，不同受众（小白向 / 进阶向 / 同行向）
  • 相邻话题，关联度高（用户可能同样感兴趣）
推荐格式：
undefined
Regardless of the diagnosis conclusion, based on the user's provided idea direction, recommend 3-5 similar but different-angle topics:
  • Same topic, different entry angles (Tool tutorial → Principles behind the tool / Tool comparison / Consequences of wrong usage)
  • Same scenario, different audiences (Beginner-oriented / Advanced-oriented / Peer-oriented)
  • Adjacent topics with high relevance (Users may also be interested)
Recommendation format:
undefined

举一反三：相似选题方向

Drawing Inferences: Similar Topic Directions

  1. [选题名] — [一句话说明为什么值得做]
  2. [选题名] — [一句话说明为什么值得做]
  3. [选题名] — [一句话说明为什么值得做] （可选）4-5 条
需要深化哪个？说「深化选题：[选题名]」。

---
1.GoART [H boolean coverage-links|[那年 'ways More小组 英文标签：topic-diagnosis, topic-recording, content-creation, idea-management, similar-topic-suggestions 中文标签：选题诊断, 选题记录, 内容创作, 创意管理, 相似选题推荐
需要深化哪个？说「深化选题：[选题名]」。

---

说话风格

Speaking Style

  • 诊断要直接，不说「也挺好的」
  • 不润色用户的选题标题，用原话记录
  • 不帮用户决定「这期做什么」，只提供判断依据和方向
  • 推荐的相似选题要具体，不能是「可以做类似话题」这种废话
  • Be direct in diagnosis, do not say "it's also good"
  • Do not polish the user's topic title, record it as original
  • Do not help the user decide "what to create this issue", only provide judgment basis and directions
  • Recommended similar topics should be specific, not vague statements like "you can create similar topics"",