first-principles
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
Chinese第一性原理
First Principles
最适合处理路径依赖。方案上补丁摞补丁的时候，回到基本事实重新推导，往往比再补一层强。
它会把已确认的基本事实、没验证过的习惯假设、真正的目标、现实约束分开摆，然后只从事实出发重新推路径。改组织流程、做产品架构、修复杂系统都好用。
Best suited to dealing with path dependence. When a solution is piled with patch after patch, going back to the basic facts and reasoning again is often better than adding yet another layer.
It separates confirmed basic facts, unverified habitual assumptions, the actual goal, and real-world constraints, then derives a new path starting only from facts. It works well for changing organizational processes, designing product architecture, and fixing complex systems.
怎么用
How to Use
下面代码块里的提示语是原文，逐字使用。代码块里的「我」指用户，「请你」「你」指你自己，照它做事，不要把填好的提示语打给用户看。
- 用户要你执行：先把本轮对话里用户已经说过的处境填进【】，只补真正缺的那一项，别让用户把说过的话再说一遍，然后严格照提示语里的规则做事。它说先别给建议就先别给，说一次只问一个问题就一次只问一个，说按顺序输出就按那个顺序输出。
- 用户要原文（明确说要复制、要粘贴、发我原文、给我提示语这类话才算）：打空白版，【】保持不填，一个字不改。用户只是说「看看这条提示语」「这条是干嘛的」，不算要原文，用一两句说清它干什么、什么时候用，再问要不要现在跑，别直接倒原文。
- 除了明确要原文的情况，其余一律当执行处理。
禁止改写、精简、扩写、翻译、重排、加小标题，禁止把它替换成你自己的流程，也禁止把多轮追问压缩成一次性问卷。用户手上有原始材料（文档、截图、链接、聊天记录）就一并读进来，上下文多不是问题。
The prompt in the code block below is the original text and should be used verbatim. In the code block, “I” refers to the user, while “Please” and “you” refer to you yourself. Follow its instructions and do not show the filled-in prompt to the user.
- When the user asks you to execute it: first fill 【】 with the situation the user has already described in the current conversation, filling in only the genuinely missing item. Do not make the user repeat what they have already said, then strictly follow the rules in the prompt. If it says not to offer advice yet, do not; if it says to ask only one question at a time, ask only one at a time; and if it says to output in a specific order, follow that order.
- When the user asks for the original text (only explicit requests such as “copy it,” “paste it,” “send me the original,” or “give me the prompt” count): output the blank version, leave 【】 unfilled, and do not change a single word. If the user merely says “look at this prompt” or “what does this do?”, that does not count as a request for the original text. Explain in one or two sentences what it does and when to use it, then ask whether to run it now; do not output the original text directly.
- Except when the user explicitly asks for the original text, always treat the request as execution.
Do not rewrite, condense, expand, translate, reorder, or add subheadings. Do not replace it with your own process, and do not compress multi-turn follow-up questions into a one-time questionnaire. If the user has source materials (documents, screenshots, links, chat logs), read them as well; there is no problem with having a lot of context.
跑完接哪条
What to Use After Completion
新路径的验证第一步，用 Skill 工具唤起 设计成七天实验；想让人来拆台，用 Skill 工具唤起 ；想先列出所有致命点再上路，用 Skill 工具唤起 。
minimum-experimentcarl-idea-kinginversionmarkdown
我想解决的问题是：【填写你的问题】。
请用第一性原理把它拆回最底层，区分：
1. 已经确认、无法绕开的基本事实；
2. 习惯性接受、却没有验证过的假设；
3. 真正想实现的目标；
4. 现实中的资源与约束。
暂时放下行业惯例和现成方案，只从基本事实、目标和约束出发，重新推导可行路径。
最后请输出：
1. 原方案中只在修补表面的部分；
2. 从基本事实重新推导出的新路径；
3. 这条路径成立的前提；
4. 验证它的第一步。The first validation step for the new path: use the Skill tool to invoke and design it as a seven-day experiment. To get people to challenge it, invoke with the Skill tool. To first list every fatal flaw before proceeding, invoke with the Skill tool.
minimum-experimentcarl-idea-kinginversionmarkdown
I want to solve the following problem: 【Fill in your problem】.
Please use first principles to break this down to the most fundamental level, distinguishing:
1. Basic facts that have been confirmed and cannot be avoided;
2. Assumptions accepted out of habit but never verified;
3. The goal we truly want to achieve;
4. Resources and constraints in reality.
Temporarily set aside industry conventions and off-the-shelf solutions. Starting only from the basic facts, goal, and constraints, derive a feasible path from scratch.
Finally, please output:
1. The parts of the original solution that merely patch the surface;
2. A new path derived from the basic facts;
3. The premises on which this path holds;
4. The first step to validate it.用户要填的位置
Field the User Needs to Fill In
【填写你的问题】
用户没给全就先问缺的那一条，别自己替他编。
提示语原文来自数字生命卡兹克，出处见仓库 README 的致谢。改动这段原文要走 ，手改会被 verify 拦下。
scripts/sync.py【Fill in your problem】
If the user has not provided everything, first ask for the one missing item; do not make it up for them.
The source of the original prompt is Digital Life Kazik; see the acknowledgments in the repository README. To modify this original text, go through ; manual edits will be blocked by .
scripts/sync.pyverify