@ckelsoe/prompt-architect 3.0.0 → 3.1.1
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json +1 -1
- package/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +1 -1
- package/CHANGELOG.md +264 -264
- package/LICENSE +21 -21
- package/README.md +1064 -1184
- package/adapters/README.md +75 -267
- package/adapters/for-windsurf.md +136 -136
- package/adapters/system-prompt.md +243 -243
- package/package.json +139 -135
- package/scripts/build-skill.js +64 -0
- package/scripts/install.js +35 -56
- package/scripts/test.js +205 -213
- package/scripts/validate-skill.js +350 -350
- package/skills/prompt-architect/SKILL.md +331 -331
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/ape_template.txt +5 -5
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/bab_template.txt +15 -15
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/broke_template.txt +15 -15
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/cai-critique-revise_template.txt +18 -18
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/care_template.txt +16 -16
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/chain-of-density_template.txt +46 -46
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/chain-of-thought_template.txt +49 -49
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/co-star_template.txt +17 -17
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/crispe_template.txt +14 -14
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/ctf_template.txt +15 -15
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/devils-advocate_template.txt +25 -25
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/hybrid_template.txt +101 -101
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/least-to-most_template.txt +16 -16
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/plan-and-solve_template.txt +7 -7
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/pre-mortem_template.txt +27 -27
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/race_template.txt +19 -19
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/rcot_template.txt +31 -31
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/react_template.txt +27 -27
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/reverse-role_template.txt +11 -11
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/rise-ie_template.txt +23 -23
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/rise-ix_template.txt +28 -28
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/risen_template.txt +21 -21
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/rpef_template.txt +26 -26
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/rtf_template.txt +13 -13
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/self-refine_template.txt +16 -16
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/skeleton-of-thought_template.txt +15 -15
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/step-back_template.txt +10 -10
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/tidd-ec_template.txt +45 -45
- package/skills/prompt-architect/assets/templates/tree-of-thought_template.txt +30 -30
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/ape.md +200 -200
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/bab.md +242 -242
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/broke.md +242 -242
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/cai-critique-revise.md +230 -230
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/care.md +235 -235
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/chain-of-density.md +479 -479
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/chain-of-thought.md +424 -424
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/co-star.md +256 -256
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/crispe.md +253 -253
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/ctf.md +207 -207
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/devils-advocate.md +206 -206
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/least-to-most.md +226 -226
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/plan-and-solve.md +210 -210
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/pre-mortem.md +197 -197
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/race.md +243 -243
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/rcot.md +203 -203
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/react.md +304 -304
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/reverse-role.md +189 -189
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/rise.md +555 -555
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/risen.md +297 -297
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/rpef.md +195 -195
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/rtf.md +358 -358
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/self-refine.md +205 -205
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/skeleton-of-thought.md +186 -186
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/step-back.md +206 -206
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/tidd-ec.md +470 -470
- package/skills/prompt-architect/references/frameworks/tree-of-thought.md +260 -260
- package/skills/prompt-architect/scripts/framework_analyzer.py +807 -807
- package/skills/prompt-architect/scripts/prompt_evaluator.py +336 -336
- package/adapters/for-cursor.mdc +0 -138
- package/adapters/for-gemini-cli.md +0 -70
- package/adapters/for-github-copilot.md +0 -141
- package/adapters/for-openai-codex-cli.md +0 -158
|
@@ -1,206 +1,206 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
# Step-Back Prompting
|
|
2
|
-
|
|
3
|
-
## Overview
|
|
4
|
-
|
|
5
|
-
Step-Back Prompting is a two-step reasoning technique where the model first answers a higher-level "step-back" question that retrieves the underlying principles, concepts, or facts relevant to the original problem — then uses those retrieved principles as context to answer the original question. By abstracting first, the model grounds its reasoning in first principles rather than diving directly into a potentially error-prone specific answer.
|
|
6
|
-
|
|
7
|
-
**Research basis:** "Take a Step Back: Evoking Reasoning via Abstraction in Large Language Models" (Zheng et al., Google DeepMind, arXiv:2310.06117, ICLR 2024). Demonstrated +7-27% accuracy on MMLU Physics and Chemistry, +27% on TimeQA, +25% on MuSiQue vs. direct prompting.
|
|
8
|
-
|
|
9
|
-
## Components
|
|
10
|
-
|
|
11
|
-
### Step 1: The Step-Back Question
|
|
12
|
-
**Purpose:** Reformulate the original question into a higher-level, more abstract question that retrieves the underlying principles or concepts needed.
|
|
13
|
-
|
|
14
|
-
**Pattern:** Strip away specifics → ask for the general principle/rule/concept.
|
|
15
|
-
|
|
16
|
-
**Examples:**
|
|
17
|
-
- Original: "What happens to water pressure at 100m depth in salt water?" → Step-back: "What are the physics principles governing fluid pressure?"
|
|
18
|
-
- Original: "How should I structure a React component that fetches user data?" → Step-back: "What are the principles of separation of concerns in React component design?"
|
|
19
|
-
- Original: "Was the Battle of Stalingrad a turning point?" → Step-back: "What factors define a military turning point in a campaign?"
|
|
20
|
-
|
|
21
|
-
### Step 2: Principle Retrieval
|
|
22
|
-
**Purpose:** Answer the step-back question to retrieve the relevant principles/concepts/facts. This becomes the reasoning context.
|
|
23
|
-
|
|
24
|
-
### Step 3: Final Answer
|
|
25
|
-
**Purpose:** Use the retrieved principles as context to answer the original specific question.
|
|
26
|
-
|
|
27
|
-
**Trigger:** "Based on these principles, now answer the original question: [original question]"
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
29
|
-
## Template Structure
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
31
|
-
```
|
|
32
|
-
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
33
|
-
[The specific question you want answered]
|
|
34
|
-
|
|
35
|
-
STEP-BACK:
|
|
36
|
-
Before answering directly, first answer this higher-level question:
|
|
37
|
-
[Step-back question — the abstract principle/concept behind the original]
|
|
38
|
-
|
|
39
|
-
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
40
|
-
Using the principles/concepts you just described, now answer the original question:
|
|
41
|
-
[Restate original question]
|
|
42
|
-
```
|
|
43
|
-
|
|
44
|
-
### Auto Step-Back (Model generates its own step-back question):
|
|
45
|
-
```
|
|
46
|
-
Before answering the following question, first identify the underlying
|
|
47
|
-
principles or concepts that govern it. State those principles clearly.
|
|
48
|
-
Then use them as a foundation to answer the specific question.
|
|
49
|
-
|
|
50
|
-
Question: [your question]
|
|
51
|
-
```
|
|
52
|
-
|
|
53
|
-
## Complete Examples
|
|
54
|
-
|
|
55
|
-
### Example 1: Technical Decision
|
|
56
|
-
|
|
57
|
-
**Before Step-Back:**
|
|
58
|
-
"Should I use PostgreSQL or MongoDB for a social feed application?"
|
|
59
|
-
|
|
60
|
-
**After Step-Back:**
|
|
61
|
-
```
|
|
62
|
-
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
63
|
-
Should I use PostgreSQL or MongoDB for a social feed application?
|
|
64
|
-
|
|
65
|
-
STEP-BACK:
|
|
66
|
-
Before answering, first answer: What are the core principles that govern
|
|
67
|
-
database selection for applications requiring feed-style queries, social graphs,
|
|
68
|
-
and high read throughput? Consider data model fit, query patterns, and
|
|
69
|
-
consistency requirements.
|
|
70
|
-
|
|
71
|
-
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
72
|
-
Using those principles, now evaluate: should I use PostgreSQL or MongoDB
|
|
73
|
-
for a social feed application where users follow other users, see a ranked
|
|
74
|
-
feed of posts, and can like/comment?
|
|
75
|
-
```
|
|
76
|
-
|
|
77
|
-
### Example 2: Debugging
|
|
78
|
-
|
|
79
|
-
**Before Step-Back:**
|
|
80
|
-
"Why does my async function return undefined when I call it?"
|
|
81
|
-
|
|
82
|
-
**After Step-Back:**
|
|
83
|
-
```
|
|
84
|
-
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
85
|
-
Why does my async function return undefined when I call it?
|
|
86
|
-
|
|
87
|
-
STEP-BACK:
|
|
88
|
-
First explain: What are the core principles of how JavaScript async/await
|
|
89
|
-
works, specifically regarding what an async function returns and how callers
|
|
90
|
-
must handle it?
|
|
91
|
-
|
|
92
|
-
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
93
|
-
Using those principles, diagnose this specific issue: [paste code].
|
|
94
|
-
Why does this return undefined, and what is the fix?
|
|
95
|
-
```
|
|
96
|
-
|
|
97
|
-
### Example 3: Architecture Review
|
|
98
|
-
|
|
99
|
-
**Before Step-Back:**
|
|
100
|
-
"Is our current authentication flow secure?"
|
|
101
|
-
|
|
102
|
-
**After Step-Back:**
|
|
103
|
-
```
|
|
104
|
-
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
105
|
-
Is our current authentication flow secure?
|
|
106
|
-
|
|
107
|
-
STEP-BACK:
|
|
108
|
-
Before reviewing our specific implementation, first outline: What are the
|
|
109
|
-
fundamental security principles and threat models that a well-designed
|
|
110
|
-
authentication flow must address? Include: credential handling, session
|
|
111
|
-
management, token security, and common attack vectors.
|
|
112
|
-
|
|
113
|
-
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
114
|
-
Using those security principles as a checklist, review our authentication
|
|
115
|
-
flow below and identify any gaps or vulnerabilities.
|
|
116
|
-
[Paste authentication flow]
|
|
117
|
-
```
|
|
118
|
-
|
|
119
|
-
### Example 4: Content/Writing
|
|
120
|
-
|
|
121
|
-
**Before Step-Back:**
|
|
122
|
-
"Write an introduction for my article about climate change and agriculture."
|
|
123
|
-
|
|
124
|
-
**After Step-Back:**
|
|
125
|
-
```
|
|
126
|
-
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
127
|
-
Write an introduction for my article about climate change and agriculture.
|
|
128
|
-
|
|
129
|
-
STEP-BACK:
|
|
130
|
-
First answer: What are the rhetorical principles of an effective article
|
|
131
|
-
introduction? What should it accomplish, and what structural elements
|
|
132
|
-
make introductions work?
|
|
133
|
-
|
|
134
|
-
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
135
|
-
Using those principles, write an introduction for an article about how
|
|
136
|
-
climate change is disrupting agricultural yield patterns globally.
|
|
137
|
-
Target audience: policy-informed general readers. Goal: create urgency
|
|
138
|
-
without alarmism.
|
|
139
|
-
```
|
|
140
|
-
|
|
141
|
-
## Best Use Cases
|
|
142
|
-
|
|
143
|
-
1. **STEM Reasoning**
|
|
144
|
-
- Physics, chemistry, math problems
|
|
145
|
-
- Engineering trade-offs
|
|
146
|
-
- Scientific analysis
|
|
147
|
-
|
|
148
|
-
2. **Technical Decision-Making**
|
|
149
|
-
- Architecture and design choices
|
|
150
|
-
- Technology selection
|
|
151
|
-
- Security analysis
|
|
152
|
-
|
|
153
|
-
3. **Historical and Causal Analysis**
|
|
154
|
-
- Evaluating decisions and their consequences
|
|
155
|
-
- Understanding complex events
|
|
156
|
-
- Root cause analysis
|
|
157
|
-
|
|
158
|
-
4. **Complex Debugging**
|
|
159
|
-
- When the specific error needs first-principles understanding
|
|
160
|
-
- Novel or unclear failure modes
|
|
161
|
-
|
|
162
|
-
5. **Any Task Where Principles Matter More Than Pattern-Matching**
|
|
163
|
-
|
|
164
|
-
## Selection Criteria
|
|
165
|
-
|
|
166
|
-
**Choose Step-Back when:**
|
|
167
|
-
- ✅ Task requires principled reasoning, not just recall
|
|
168
|
-
- ✅ Direct answers tend to be shallow or incorrect
|
|
169
|
-
- ✅ Underlying principles are known and applicable
|
|
170
|
-
- ✅ The question is specific but has a generalizable foundation
|
|
171
|
-
- ✅ Errors in past attempts suggest lack of principled grounding
|
|
172
|
-
|
|
173
|
-
**Avoid Step-Back when:**
|
|
174
|
-
- ❌ Task is straightforward and factual — overhead not worth it → use APE or RTF
|
|
175
|
-
- ❌ Content creation (no abstract principle needed) → use CO-STAR or BAB
|
|
176
|
-
- ❌ Already reasoning step-by-step → CoT may suffice
|
|
177
|
-
- ❌ The principle is unknowable or irrelevant
|
|
178
|
-
|
|
179
|
-
## Step-Back vs. Chain of Thought
|
|
180
|
-
|
|
181
|
-
| | Step-Back | Chain of Thought |
|
|
182
|
-
|---|---|---|
|
|
183
|
-
| Direction | Abstract → Specific | Step 1 → Step 2 → ... → Answer |
|
|
184
|
-
| Starting point | Higher-level principle | The problem itself |
|
|
185
|
-
| Best for | Principle-grounded reasoning | Known procedure, sequential steps |
|
|
186
|
-
| Failure mode | Step-back question too vague | Errors compound through chain |
|
|
187
|
-
|
|
188
|
-
**Rule of thumb:** If the question has a known procedure → CoT. If the question requires first-principles reasoning → Step-Back.
|
|
189
|
-
|
|
190
|
-
## Generating Good Step-Back Questions
|
|
191
|
-
|
|
192
|
-
**Pattern:** Remove specifics → ask for the governing rule/principle
|
|
193
|
-
|
|
194
|
-
| Original (Specific) | Step-Back (Abstract) |
|
|
195
|
-
|---|---|
|
|
196
|
-
| "What happens when thread A and thread B access shared memory?" | "What are the principles of memory consistency in concurrent programming?" |
|
|
197
|
-
| "How should I price my SaaS product?" | "What are the principles of value-based pricing for B2B software?" |
|
|
198
|
-
| "Was this code change the cause of our performance regression?" | "What are the principles for diagnosing performance regressions in production systems?" |
|
|
199
|
-
|
|
200
|
-
## Quick Reference
|
|
201
|
-
|
|
202
|
-
| Step | Purpose | Key Question |
|
|
203
|
-
|------|---------|--------------|
|
|
204
|
-
| Step-Back Question | Abstract the problem | "What principle governs this?" |
|
|
205
|
-
| Principle Retrieval | Get the foundation | "What are the rules?" |
|
|
206
|
-
| Final Answer | Apply principles to specifics | "Given these principles, what's the answer?" |
|
|
1
|
+
# Step-Back Prompting
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Overview
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Step-Back Prompting is a two-step reasoning technique where the model first answers a higher-level "step-back" question that retrieves the underlying principles, concepts, or facts relevant to the original problem — then uses those retrieved principles as context to answer the original question. By abstracting first, the model grounds its reasoning in first principles rather than diving directly into a potentially error-prone specific answer.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
**Research basis:** "Take a Step Back: Evoking Reasoning via Abstraction in Large Language Models" (Zheng et al., Google DeepMind, arXiv:2310.06117, ICLR 2024). Demonstrated +7-27% accuracy on MMLU Physics and Chemistry, +27% on TimeQA, +25% on MuSiQue vs. direct prompting.
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## Components
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
### Step 1: The Step-Back Question
|
|
12
|
+
**Purpose:** Reformulate the original question into a higher-level, more abstract question that retrieves the underlying principles or concepts needed.
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
**Pattern:** Strip away specifics → ask for the general principle/rule/concept.
|
|
15
|
+
|
|
16
|
+
**Examples:**
|
|
17
|
+
- Original: "What happens to water pressure at 100m depth in salt water?" → Step-back: "What are the physics principles governing fluid pressure?"
|
|
18
|
+
- Original: "How should I structure a React component that fetches user data?" → Step-back: "What are the principles of separation of concerns in React component design?"
|
|
19
|
+
- Original: "Was the Battle of Stalingrad a turning point?" → Step-back: "What factors define a military turning point in a campaign?"
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
### Step 2: Principle Retrieval
|
|
22
|
+
**Purpose:** Answer the step-back question to retrieve the relevant principles/concepts/facts. This becomes the reasoning context.
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
### Step 3: Final Answer
|
|
25
|
+
**Purpose:** Use the retrieved principles as context to answer the original specific question.
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
**Trigger:** "Based on these principles, now answer the original question: [original question]"
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Template Structure
|
|
30
|
+
|
|
31
|
+
```
|
|
32
|
+
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
33
|
+
[The specific question you want answered]
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
STEP-BACK:
|
|
36
|
+
Before answering directly, first answer this higher-level question:
|
|
37
|
+
[Step-back question — the abstract principle/concept behind the original]
|
|
38
|
+
|
|
39
|
+
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
40
|
+
Using the principles/concepts you just described, now answer the original question:
|
|
41
|
+
[Restate original question]
|
|
42
|
+
```
|
|
43
|
+
|
|
44
|
+
### Auto Step-Back (Model generates its own step-back question):
|
|
45
|
+
```
|
|
46
|
+
Before answering the following question, first identify the underlying
|
|
47
|
+
principles or concepts that govern it. State those principles clearly.
|
|
48
|
+
Then use them as a foundation to answer the specific question.
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
Question: [your question]
|
|
51
|
+
```
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Complete Examples
|
|
54
|
+
|
|
55
|
+
### Example 1: Technical Decision
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
57
|
+
**Before Step-Back:**
|
|
58
|
+
"Should I use PostgreSQL or MongoDB for a social feed application?"
|
|
59
|
+
|
|
60
|
+
**After Step-Back:**
|
|
61
|
+
```
|
|
62
|
+
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
63
|
+
Should I use PostgreSQL or MongoDB for a social feed application?
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
STEP-BACK:
|
|
66
|
+
Before answering, first answer: What are the core principles that govern
|
|
67
|
+
database selection for applications requiring feed-style queries, social graphs,
|
|
68
|
+
and high read throughput? Consider data model fit, query patterns, and
|
|
69
|
+
consistency requirements.
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
72
|
+
Using those principles, now evaluate: should I use PostgreSQL or MongoDB
|
|
73
|
+
for a social feed application where users follow other users, see a ranked
|
|
74
|
+
feed of posts, and can like/comment?
|
|
75
|
+
```
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
### Example 2: Debugging
|
|
78
|
+
|
|
79
|
+
**Before Step-Back:**
|
|
80
|
+
"Why does my async function return undefined when I call it?"
|
|
81
|
+
|
|
82
|
+
**After Step-Back:**
|
|
83
|
+
```
|
|
84
|
+
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
85
|
+
Why does my async function return undefined when I call it?
|
|
86
|
+
|
|
87
|
+
STEP-BACK:
|
|
88
|
+
First explain: What are the core principles of how JavaScript async/await
|
|
89
|
+
works, specifically regarding what an async function returns and how callers
|
|
90
|
+
must handle it?
|
|
91
|
+
|
|
92
|
+
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
93
|
+
Using those principles, diagnose this specific issue: [paste code].
|
|
94
|
+
Why does this return undefined, and what is the fix?
|
|
95
|
+
```
|
|
96
|
+
|
|
97
|
+
### Example 3: Architecture Review
|
|
98
|
+
|
|
99
|
+
**Before Step-Back:**
|
|
100
|
+
"Is our current authentication flow secure?"
|
|
101
|
+
|
|
102
|
+
**After Step-Back:**
|
|
103
|
+
```
|
|
104
|
+
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
105
|
+
Is our current authentication flow secure?
|
|
106
|
+
|
|
107
|
+
STEP-BACK:
|
|
108
|
+
Before reviewing our specific implementation, first outline: What are the
|
|
109
|
+
fundamental security principles and threat models that a well-designed
|
|
110
|
+
authentication flow must address? Include: credential handling, session
|
|
111
|
+
management, token security, and common attack vectors.
|
|
112
|
+
|
|
113
|
+
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
114
|
+
Using those security principles as a checklist, review our authentication
|
|
115
|
+
flow below and identify any gaps or vulnerabilities.
|
|
116
|
+
[Paste authentication flow]
|
|
117
|
+
```
|
|
118
|
+
|
|
119
|
+
### Example 4: Content/Writing
|
|
120
|
+
|
|
121
|
+
**Before Step-Back:**
|
|
122
|
+
"Write an introduction for my article about climate change and agriculture."
|
|
123
|
+
|
|
124
|
+
**After Step-Back:**
|
|
125
|
+
```
|
|
126
|
+
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
|
|
127
|
+
Write an introduction for my article about climate change and agriculture.
|
|
128
|
+
|
|
129
|
+
STEP-BACK:
|
|
130
|
+
First answer: What are the rhetorical principles of an effective article
|
|
131
|
+
introduction? What should it accomplish, and what structural elements
|
|
132
|
+
make introductions work?
|
|
133
|
+
|
|
134
|
+
PRINCIPLE APPLICATION:
|
|
135
|
+
Using those principles, write an introduction for an article about how
|
|
136
|
+
climate change is disrupting agricultural yield patterns globally.
|
|
137
|
+
Target audience: policy-informed general readers. Goal: create urgency
|
|
138
|
+
without alarmism.
|
|
139
|
+
```
|
|
140
|
+
|
|
141
|
+
## Best Use Cases
|
|
142
|
+
|
|
143
|
+
1. **STEM Reasoning**
|
|
144
|
+
- Physics, chemistry, math problems
|
|
145
|
+
- Engineering trade-offs
|
|
146
|
+
- Scientific analysis
|
|
147
|
+
|
|
148
|
+
2. **Technical Decision-Making**
|
|
149
|
+
- Architecture and design choices
|
|
150
|
+
- Technology selection
|
|
151
|
+
- Security analysis
|
|
152
|
+
|
|
153
|
+
3. **Historical and Causal Analysis**
|
|
154
|
+
- Evaluating decisions and their consequences
|
|
155
|
+
- Understanding complex events
|
|
156
|
+
- Root cause analysis
|
|
157
|
+
|
|
158
|
+
4. **Complex Debugging**
|
|
159
|
+
- When the specific error needs first-principles understanding
|
|
160
|
+
- Novel or unclear failure modes
|
|
161
|
+
|
|
162
|
+
5. **Any Task Where Principles Matter More Than Pattern-Matching**
|
|
163
|
+
|
|
164
|
+
## Selection Criteria
|
|
165
|
+
|
|
166
|
+
**Choose Step-Back when:**
|
|
167
|
+
- ✅ Task requires principled reasoning, not just recall
|
|
168
|
+
- ✅ Direct answers tend to be shallow or incorrect
|
|
169
|
+
- ✅ Underlying principles are known and applicable
|
|
170
|
+
- ✅ The question is specific but has a generalizable foundation
|
|
171
|
+
- ✅ Errors in past attempts suggest lack of principled grounding
|
|
172
|
+
|
|
173
|
+
**Avoid Step-Back when:**
|
|
174
|
+
- ❌ Task is straightforward and factual — overhead not worth it → use APE or RTF
|
|
175
|
+
- ❌ Content creation (no abstract principle needed) → use CO-STAR or BAB
|
|
176
|
+
- ❌ Already reasoning step-by-step → CoT may suffice
|
|
177
|
+
- ❌ The principle is unknowable or irrelevant
|
|
178
|
+
|
|
179
|
+
## Step-Back vs. Chain of Thought
|
|
180
|
+
|
|
181
|
+
| | Step-Back | Chain of Thought |
|
|
182
|
+
|---|---|---|
|
|
183
|
+
| Direction | Abstract → Specific | Step 1 → Step 2 → ... → Answer |
|
|
184
|
+
| Starting point | Higher-level principle | The problem itself |
|
|
185
|
+
| Best for | Principle-grounded reasoning | Known procedure, sequential steps |
|
|
186
|
+
| Failure mode | Step-back question too vague | Errors compound through chain |
|
|
187
|
+
|
|
188
|
+
**Rule of thumb:** If the question has a known procedure → CoT. If the question requires first-principles reasoning → Step-Back.
|
|
189
|
+
|
|
190
|
+
## Generating Good Step-Back Questions
|
|
191
|
+
|
|
192
|
+
**Pattern:** Remove specifics → ask for the governing rule/principle
|
|
193
|
+
|
|
194
|
+
| Original (Specific) | Step-Back (Abstract) |
|
|
195
|
+
|---|---|
|
|
196
|
+
| "What happens when thread A and thread B access shared memory?" | "What are the principles of memory consistency in concurrent programming?" |
|
|
197
|
+
| "How should I price my SaaS product?" | "What are the principles of value-based pricing for B2B software?" |
|
|
198
|
+
| "Was this code change the cause of our performance regression?" | "What are the principles for diagnosing performance regressions in production systems?" |
|
|
199
|
+
|
|
200
|
+
## Quick Reference
|
|
201
|
+
|
|
202
|
+
| Step | Purpose | Key Question |
|
|
203
|
+
|------|---------|--------------|
|
|
204
|
+
| Step-Back Question | Abstract the problem | "What principle governs this?" |
|
|
205
|
+
| Principle Retrieval | Get the foundation | "What are the rules?" |
|
|
206
|
+
| Final Answer | Apply principles to specifics | "Given these principles, what's the answer?" |
|