diff --git a/PROMPTS.md b/PROMPTS.md index 66f55c9c..f53daea6 100644 --- a/PROMPTS.md +++ b/PROMPTS.md @@ -145481,3 +145481,583 @@ Contributed by @anonymous +
+master one prompt + +## master one prompt + +Contributed by @anonymous + +```md +Create one extremely powerful MASTER PROMPT for Claude Pro. + +The purpose of the prompt is to make Claude act as the complete AI development and research team for my final-year college cybersecurity project. + +I will provide Claude with: +- the exact project title +- college-provided research papers +- college-provided PDFs +- college PPT/template +- review rubric/guidelines +- any mandatory requirements + +The project must be researched, designed, coded, tested, evaluated, documented and prepared for presentation primarily with AI tools. + +I am doing the project alone. Therefore the AI must do as much of the research, coding, debugging, testing, documentation and presentation preparation as possible, while keeping the project realistically achievable. + +IMPORTANT: +This is a FRESH PROJECT INSTRUCTION. + +Do NOT refer to previous conversations. +Do NOT assume previous project decisions. +Do NOT include teammate work. +Do NOT use old project discussions unless I explicitly provide them. +Do NOT assume that any previously discussed feature is our final solution. + +The prompt must force Claude to work in STRICT PHASES and prevent it from jumping randomly between research, coding, UI and PPT. + +Required workflow: + +PHASE 0 — Understand college requirements +PHASE 1 — Research the technology from old to current +PHASE 2 — Analyze existing commercial and academic systems +PHASE 3 — Research current problems and limitations +PHASE 4 — Identify genuine research gaps +PHASE 5 — Generate and rank possible project contributions +PHASE 6 — Strict faculty/reviewer attack test +PHASE 7 — Freeze the final research direction +PHASE 8 — Design architecture +PHASE 9 — Build complete working code +PHASE 10 — Testing and debugging +PHASE 11 — Dataset and experimental design +PHASE 12 — Run experiments and collect real results +PHASE 13 — Build professional UI/dashboard +PHASE 14 — Integrate and validate the complete system +PHASE 15 — PPT and report +PHASE 16 — Mock viva and final reviewer assessment + +Claude must finish each phase and wait for my command before moving to the next phase. + +================================================== +RESEARCH REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +The prompt must instruct Claude to research deeply using reliable and recent sources. + +Use sources such as: + +IEEE +ACM +USENIX +Springer +Elsevier +reputable conferences/journals +official vendor documentation +official standards +reputable security research + +Research both older foundational work and current 2024–2026 developments. + +Do not fabricate papers, authors, datasets, statistics, citations or results. + +Every important research claim must be verified. + +================================================== +NOVELTY REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +This is extremely important. + +Do NOT tell Claude to make the project "sound innovative." + +Tell Claude to determine what is ACTUALLY different after researching existing systems. + +The reviewer may ask: + +"What is new?" + +"This already exists." + +"Cisco Umbrella already does this." + +"Cloudflare already does this." + +"Antivirus already does this." + +"Why do we need your project?" + +"What exactly is your contribution?" + +Therefore Claude must research current products and research before recommending novelty. + +If a proposed feature already exists: + +→ explicitly identify it +→ do NOT call it novel +→ determine whether there is a legitimate improvement, evaluation, integration, optimization or unresolved limitation + +Do not automatically assume that: +- AI +- Machine Learning +- Threat Intelligence +- DNS filtering +- DGA detection +- DNS tunneling detection +- behavioral analysis +- explainable AI +- risk scoring +- adaptive detection +- DoH/DoT detection + +are novel. + +Research first. + +================================================== +DNS SECURITY EXAMPLE +================================================== + +If the project is related to DNS filtering/security, investigate modern systems such as: + +Cisco Umbrella +Cloudflare DNS/security +Quad9 +NextDNS +enterprise DNS security +antivirus/EDR +firewalls +IDS/IPS +web security gateways +open-source DNS security systems + +Determine: + +What they already do +How they do it +What works well +What limitations remain +What researchers are currently investigating + +Also investigate current DNS-security challenges including: + +unknown domains +previously unseen threats +false positives +false negatives +threat-intelligence delay +outdated reputation +changing attacker behavior +concept/model drift +DGA evolution +DNS tunneling +DoH +DoT +DNS bypass +privacy +latency +computational overhead +explainability +dataset bias +class imbalance +adversarial attacks +cross-network generalization +temporal behavior +context-aware detection +safe automated response + +These are examples only. + +Claude must discover better opportunities if current research identifies them. + +================================================== +ANTIVIRUS CHALLENGE +================================================== + +The prompt must instruct Claude to compare the project against: + +Antivirus +EDR +Firewall +IDS/IPS +Web security gateway +DNS security + +Claude must explain: + +What DNS can see +What DNS cannot see +What DNS can potentially detect earlier +Where DNS overlaps with antivirus +Where DNS provides a distinct security role + +Never claim DNS replaces antivirus. + +================================================== +RESEARCH GAP +================================================== + +Claude must produce: + +Existing systems +↓ +Existing capabilities +↓ +Current limitations +↓ +Research attempts +↓ +Remaining gap +↓ +Research question +↓ +Proposed contribution +↓ +How the contribution will be experimentally proven + +Do not invent a research gap. + +================================================== +WOW FACTOR +================================================== + +Find ONE genuinely useful "WOW" feature. + +It must be: + +research-backed +useful +implementable +testable +measurable +demonstrable + +Do NOT add unnecessary blockchain, chatbot, LLM or decorative AI features merely to make the project look advanced. + +One strong contribution is better than many weak features. + +================================================== +REVIEWER MODE +================================================== + +The prompt must make Claude act as a hostile faculty reviewer after designing the project. + +Claude must ask difficult questions such as: + +What exactly is new? +Isn't this already available? +Does Cisco Umbrella already do this? +Does antivirus already do this? +Why not use an existing service? +What is your research gap? +Which paper supports the gap? +What exactly did you implement? +How does the system make decisions? +What happens when Threat Intelligence has no information? +What happens when ML is wrong? +How do you handle false positives? +How do you handle false negatives? +Can attackers bypass it? +What happens with DoH/DoT? +How much latency does it introduce? +How do you prove improvement? +Why this dataset? +Why this algorithm? +What are the limitations? + +Claude must identify weaknesses and tell me exactly how to improve them. + +It must score the project on: + +Problem clarity +Research depth +Existing-system analysis +Research gap +Novelty/differentiation +Technical feasibility +Architecture +Implementation +Dataset +Experiments +Results +Practical usefulness +Security relevance +Performance +UI/demo +Viva defensibility +WOW factor + +================================================== +IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +The final project must be a REAL WORKING PROJECT. + +Claude must provide: + +complete folder structure +complete source code +dependencies +installation commands +configuration +environment variables +database +API +frontend +backend +testing +debugging +deployment/run instructions + +No pseudocode. + +No fake implementation. + +No TODO-only code. + +No fake API responses. + +No invented results. + +If Claude modifies a file, it must provide the complete updated file. + +Build incrementally: + +BUILD +→ RUN +→ TEST +→ VERIFY +→ FIX +→ NEXT + +Never continue while a critical component is broken. + +================================================== +AI TOOL STRATEGY +================================================== + +The master prompt must tell Claude how to divide work among AI tools: + +Claude: +research, literature analysis, research gap, architecture, code generation, code review + +ChatGPT: +independent verification, architecture review, debugging, testing, technical reasoning, viva + +Cursor: +main codebase implementation and integration + +GitHub Copilot: +small coding tasks, autocomplete and tests + +Perplexity: +independent research/source verification + +v0: +professional UI/dashboard generation + +GitHub: +version control + +The AI tools are being used as the development/research team, so the workflow should maximize their usefulness. + +================================================== +EXPERIMENT REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +The project must have REAL experiments. + +Claude must design: + +baseline +vs +proposed approach + +Use appropriate metrics such as: + +precision +recall +F1 +false-positive rate +false-negative rate +detection rate +latency +processing overhead +generalization +robustness + +Only use metrics relevant to the actual project. + +All final results must come from experiments we actually run. + +Never invent numbers. + +================================================== +UI REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +If a UI is appropriate, create a professional cybersecurity dashboard. + +It must use real backend data. + +No static fake dashboard. + +Show only useful project information such as: + +queries +detections +risk/decision +evidence +alerts +statistics +performance +system status + +================================================== +PPT / REPORT REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +After the implementation and experiments are validated, generate the PPT and report according to the official college template and rubric. + +Everything shown in the PPT must match the actual implementation. + +If something is not implemented, label it: + +PROPOSED +or +FUTURE SCOPE + +Never present planned functionality as completed. + +================================================== +VIVA REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +Claude must eventually conduct a mock viva. + +Ask questions one at a time. + +Start basic and become increasingly difficult. + +If my answer is wrong: + +1. Explain what is wrong. +2. Give the correct technical explanation. +3. Give me a short answer I can say to faculty. +4. Continue with the next question. + +================================================== +FINAL AUDIT +================================================== + +Before declaring the project complete, Claude must audit: + +TITLE +↓ +OBJECTIVES +↓ +RESEARCH +↓ +EXISTING SYSTEMS +↓ +CURRENT LIMITATIONS +↓ +RESEARCH GAP +↓ +CONTRIBUTION +↓ +ARCHITECTURE +↓ +CODE +↓ +DATASET +↓ +EXPERIMENTS +↓ +REAL RESULTS +↓ +UI +↓ +PPT +↓ +REPORT +↓ +DEMO +↓ +VIVA + +Everything must be consistent. + +The final project must survive: + +"THIS ALREADY EXISTS. WHAT DID YOU ACTUALLY ADD?" + +================================================== +MOST IMPORTANT RULE +================================================== + +Be skeptical. + +Do not agree with my ideas automatically. + +If something already exists, tell me. + +If the research gap is weak, tell me. + +If the project scope is too large, reduce it. + +If an idea is impossible for one developer, reject it. + +If a feature is unnecessary, remove it. + +If a contribution is genuinely useful and feasible, explain why. + +Do not optimize for impressive wording. + +Optimize for: + +REAL PROBLEM ++ +REAL RESEARCH GAP ++ +REAL CONTRIBUTION ++ +WORKING CODE ++ +REAL TESTING ++ +REAL EXPERIMENTS ++ +REAL RESULTS ++ +STRONG DEMO ++ +STRONG VIVA + +================================================== +OUTPUT FORMAT +================================================== + +The generated Claude master prompt must be: + +- extremely clear +- structured +- sequential +- unambiguous +- professional +- detailed enough to guide the entire project +- designed to prevent Claude from jumping ahead +- designed for a solo student using multiple AI tools + +At the END of the generated master prompt, instruct Claude: + +"WAIT FOR THE USER TO PROVIDE THE PROJECT TITLE AND OFFICIAL COLLEGE MATERIAL. + +DO NOT START RESEARCH. +DO NOT START CODING. +DO NOT DESIGN THE ARCHITECTURE. + +FIRST COMPLETE PHASE 0 ONLY." +``` + +
+ diff --git a/prompts.csv b/prompts.csv index 7508dca9..fc9900fd 100644 --- a/prompts.csv +++ b/prompts.csv @@ -119491,3 +119491,571 @@ Little mann," Young Black man, 23 years old * Small scar above his right eyebrow * Calm, determined facial expression * Poor version: faded dark-brown hoodie, worn blue jeans, old black sneakers, brown canvas shoulder bag",FALSE,TEXT,couragebillon@gmail.com +master one prompt,"Create one extremely powerful MASTER PROMPT for Claude Pro. + +The purpose of the prompt is to make Claude act as the complete AI development and research team for my final-year college cybersecurity project. + +I will provide Claude with: +- the exact project title +- college-provided research papers +- college-provided PDFs +- college PPT/template +- review rubric/guidelines +- any mandatory requirements + +The project must be researched, designed, coded, tested, evaluated, documented and prepared for presentation primarily with AI tools. + +I am doing the project alone. Therefore the AI must do as much of the research, coding, debugging, testing, documentation and presentation preparation as possible, while keeping the project realistically achievable. + +IMPORTANT: +This is a FRESH PROJECT INSTRUCTION. + +Do NOT refer to previous conversations. +Do NOT assume previous project decisions. +Do NOT include teammate work. +Do NOT use old project discussions unless I explicitly provide them. +Do NOT assume that any previously discussed feature is our final solution. + +The prompt must force Claude to work in STRICT PHASES and prevent it from jumping randomly between research, coding, UI and PPT. + +Required workflow: + +PHASE 0 — Understand college requirements +PHASE 1 — Research the technology from old to current +PHASE 2 — Analyze existing commercial and academic systems +PHASE 3 — Research current problems and limitations +PHASE 4 — Identify genuine research gaps +PHASE 5 — Generate and rank possible project contributions +PHASE 6 — Strict faculty/reviewer attack test +PHASE 7 — Freeze the final research direction +PHASE 8 — Design architecture +PHASE 9 — Build complete working code +PHASE 10 — Testing and debugging +PHASE 11 — Dataset and experimental design +PHASE 12 — Run experiments and collect real results +PHASE 13 — Build professional UI/dashboard +PHASE 14 — Integrate and validate the complete system +PHASE 15 — PPT and report +PHASE 16 — Mock viva and final reviewer assessment + +Claude must finish each phase and wait for my command before moving to the next phase. + +================================================== +RESEARCH REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +The prompt must instruct Claude to research deeply using reliable and recent sources. + +Use sources such as: + +IEEE +ACM +USENIX +Springer +Elsevier +reputable conferences/journals +official vendor documentation +official standards +reputable security research + +Research both older foundational work and current 2024–2026 developments. + +Do not fabricate papers, authors, datasets, statistics, citations or results. + +Every important research claim must be verified. + +================================================== +NOVELTY REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +This is extremely important. + +Do NOT tell Claude to make the project ""sound innovative."" + +Tell Claude to determine what is ACTUALLY different after researching existing systems. + +The reviewer may ask: + +""What is new?"" + +""This already exists."" + +""Cisco Umbrella already does this."" + +""Cloudflare already does this."" + +""Antivirus already does this."" + +""Why do we need your project?"" + +""What exactly is your contribution?"" + +Therefore Claude must research current products and research before recommending novelty. + +If a proposed feature already exists: + +→ explicitly identify it +→ do NOT call it novel +→ determine whether there is a legitimate improvement, evaluation, integration, optimization or unresolved limitation + +Do not automatically assume that: +- AI +- Machine Learning +- Threat Intelligence +- DNS filtering +- DGA detection +- DNS tunneling detection +- behavioral analysis +- explainable AI +- risk scoring +- adaptive detection +- DoH/DoT detection + +are novel. + +Research first. + +================================================== +DNS SECURITY EXAMPLE +================================================== + +If the project is related to DNS filtering/security, investigate modern systems such as: + +Cisco Umbrella +Cloudflare DNS/security +Quad9 +NextDNS +enterprise DNS security +antivirus/EDR +firewalls +IDS/IPS +web security gateways +open-source DNS security systems + +Determine: + +What they already do +How they do it +What works well +What limitations remain +What researchers are currently investigating + +Also investigate current DNS-security challenges including: + +unknown domains +previously unseen threats +false positives +false negatives +threat-intelligence delay +outdated reputation +changing attacker behavior +concept/model drift +DGA evolution +DNS tunneling +DoH +DoT +DNS bypass +privacy +latency +computational overhead +explainability +dataset bias +class imbalance +adversarial attacks +cross-network generalization +temporal behavior +context-aware detection +safe automated response + +These are examples only. + +Claude must discover better opportunities if current research identifies them. + +================================================== +ANTIVIRUS CHALLENGE +================================================== + +The prompt must instruct Claude to compare the project against: + +Antivirus +EDR +Firewall +IDS/IPS +Web security gateway +DNS security + +Claude must explain: + +What DNS can see +What DNS cannot see +What DNS can potentially detect earlier +Where DNS overlaps with antivirus +Where DNS provides a distinct security role + +Never claim DNS replaces antivirus. + +================================================== +RESEARCH GAP +================================================== + +Claude must produce: + +Existing systems +↓ +Existing capabilities +↓ +Current limitations +↓ +Research attempts +↓ +Remaining gap +↓ +Research question +↓ +Proposed contribution +↓ +How the contribution will be experimentally proven + +Do not invent a research gap. + +================================================== +WOW FACTOR +================================================== + +Find ONE genuinely useful ""WOW"" feature. + +It must be: + +research-backed +useful +implementable +testable +measurable +demonstrable + +Do NOT add unnecessary blockchain, chatbot, LLM or decorative AI features merely to make the project look advanced. + +One strong contribution is better than many weak features. + +================================================== +REVIEWER MODE +================================================== + +The prompt must make Claude act as a hostile faculty reviewer after designing the project. + +Claude must ask difficult questions such as: + +What exactly is new? +Isn't this already available? +Does Cisco Umbrella already do this? +Does antivirus already do this? +Why not use an existing service? +What is your research gap? +Which paper supports the gap? +What exactly did you implement? +How does the system make decisions? +What happens when Threat Intelligence has no information? +What happens when ML is wrong? +How do you handle false positives? +How do you handle false negatives? +Can attackers bypass it? +What happens with DoH/DoT? +How much latency does it introduce? +How do you prove improvement? +Why this dataset? +Why this algorithm? +What are the limitations? + +Claude must identify weaknesses and tell me exactly how to improve them. + +It must score the project on: + +Problem clarity +Research depth +Existing-system analysis +Research gap +Novelty/differentiation +Technical feasibility +Architecture +Implementation +Dataset +Experiments +Results +Practical usefulness +Security relevance +Performance +UI/demo +Viva defensibility +WOW factor + +================================================== +IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +The final project must be a REAL WORKING PROJECT. + +Claude must provide: + +complete folder structure +complete source code +dependencies +installation commands +configuration +environment variables +database +API +frontend +backend +testing +debugging +deployment/run instructions + +No pseudocode. + +No fake implementation. + +No TODO-only code. + +No fake API responses. + +No invented results. + +If Claude modifies a file, it must provide the complete updated file. + +Build incrementally: + +BUILD +→ RUN +→ TEST +→ VERIFY +→ FIX +→ NEXT + +Never continue while a critical component is broken. + +================================================== +AI TOOL STRATEGY +================================================== + +The master prompt must tell Claude how to divide work among AI tools: + +Claude: +research, literature analysis, research gap, architecture, code generation, code review + +ChatGPT: +independent verification, architecture review, debugging, testing, technical reasoning, viva + +Cursor: +main codebase implementation and integration + +GitHub Copilot: +small coding tasks, autocomplete and tests + +Perplexity: +independent research/source verification + +v0: +professional UI/dashboard generation + +GitHub: +version control + +The AI tools are being used as the development/research team, so the workflow should maximize their usefulness. + +================================================== +EXPERIMENT REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +The project must have REAL experiments. + +Claude must design: + +baseline +vs +proposed approach + +Use appropriate metrics such as: + +precision +recall +F1 +false-positive rate +false-negative rate +detection rate +latency +processing overhead +generalization +robustness + +Only use metrics relevant to the actual project. + +All final results must come from experiments we actually run. + +Never invent numbers. + +================================================== +UI REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +If a UI is appropriate, create a professional cybersecurity dashboard. + +It must use real backend data. + +No static fake dashboard. + +Show only useful project information such as: + +queries +detections +risk/decision +evidence +alerts +statistics +performance +system status + +================================================== +PPT / REPORT REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +After the implementation and experiments are validated, generate the PPT and report according to the official college template and rubric. + +Everything shown in the PPT must match the actual implementation. + +If something is not implemented, label it: + +PROPOSED +or +FUTURE SCOPE + +Never present planned functionality as completed. + +================================================== +VIVA REQUIREMENT +================================================== + +Claude must eventually conduct a mock viva. + +Ask questions one at a time. + +Start basic and become increasingly difficult. + +If my answer is wrong: + +1. Explain what is wrong. +2. Give the correct technical explanation. +3. Give me a short answer I can say to faculty. +4. Continue with the next question. + +================================================== +FINAL AUDIT +================================================== + +Before declaring the project complete, Claude must audit: + +TITLE +↓ +OBJECTIVES +↓ +RESEARCH +↓ +EXISTING SYSTEMS +↓ +CURRENT LIMITATIONS +↓ +RESEARCH GAP +↓ +CONTRIBUTION +↓ +ARCHITECTURE +↓ +CODE +↓ +DATASET +↓ +EXPERIMENTS +↓ +REAL RESULTS +↓ +UI +↓ +PPT +↓ +REPORT +↓ +DEMO +↓ +VIVA + +Everything must be consistent. + +The final project must survive: + +""THIS ALREADY EXISTS. WHAT DID YOU ACTUALLY ADD?"" + +================================================== +MOST IMPORTANT RULE +================================================== + +Be skeptical. + +Do not agree with my ideas automatically. + +If something already exists, tell me. + +If the research gap is weak, tell me. + +If the project scope is too large, reduce it. + +If an idea is impossible for one developer, reject it. + +If a feature is unnecessary, remove it. + +If a contribution is genuinely useful and feasible, explain why. + +Do not optimize for impressive wording. + +Optimize for: + +REAL PROBLEM ++ +REAL RESEARCH GAP ++ +REAL CONTRIBUTION ++ +WORKING CODE ++ +REAL TESTING ++ +REAL EXPERIMENTS ++ +REAL RESULTS ++ +STRONG DEMO ++ +STRONG VIVA + +================================================== +OUTPUT FORMAT +================================================== + +The generated Claude master prompt must be: + +- extremely clear +- structured +- sequential +- unambiguous +- professional +- detailed enough to guide the entire project +- designed to prevent Claude from jumping ahead +- designed for a solo student using multiple AI tools + +At the END of the generated master prompt, instruct Claude: + +""WAIT FOR THE USER TO PROVIDE THE PROJECT TITLE AND OFFICIAL COLLEGE MATERIAL. + +DO NOT START RESEARCH. +DO NOT START CODING. +DO NOT DESIGN THE ARCHITECTURE. + +FIRST COMPLETE PHASE 0 ONLY.""",FALSE,TEXT,sharanshakthii5@gmail.com