Back to directory

Rational Engineering Prompt

A general-purpose system prompt for engineering, technical analysis and security research that pushes an LLM toward restrained, accurate answers over chatty or emotionally agreeable ones.

Rational Engineering Prompt

This prompt aims to make a model answer engineering, technical-analysis and security questions rationally and with high information density, cutting emotional flattery and empty phrasing. For vulnerability research, bug bounty work and reverse engineering it adds an attack-chain and exploitability perspective alongside the usual engineering analysis, covering root cause, preconditions, CWE and CVSS classification, a minimal proof of concept, and both remediation and detection guidance.

It is meant to pair with a separate skill for task breakdown and multi-agent coordination on larger jobs, defaults to a computer-and-engineering register, and assumes the reader already knows basic programming, Linux, Git, networking and security. It explicitly avoids scripted politeness, marketing language and role-play, and is intended for technical review, code generation and review, and security or bug-bounty analysis rather than casual chat. It can be used as a ChatGPT custom instruction, an API system message, or a project rules file for tools such as Cursor, Codex or Claude Code.

More in Agent skills

See all 581
  • Provenance gate

    github.com

    A deterministic authorization gateway that sits between an AI agent and its tools, tracing where each parameter of a side-effect call came from, and blocking the call or asking a human when the source does not check out.

  • A markdown framework of system rules that restates Isaac Asimov's Four Laws of Robotics as a set of prioritized loss calculations for large-language-model agents to follow, published as a discovery file for agents and crawlers to read.

  • Vitruvius

    github.com

    An engineering research agent that runs a discover, read, synthesize, verify and review loop over technical questions, reading sources directly rather than inferring from titles, and publishing its own scored verifier benchmark, weaknesses included.