Deepen Task

Turn a surface-level request into an executable brief with stronger evidence, methods, and checks. Improve the substance of the work without automatically adding deliverables, length, or complexity.

Establish the task boundary

Read the supplied prompt and relevant context. Identify the intended outcome, requested artifact, audience, constraints, available inputs, and what counts as success. Preserve explicit choices about format, tools, time, and budget. Ask only when an unresolved detail would materially change the brief; otherwise state a reasonable assumption.

Match the deliverable to the request. When the user asks to improve a prompt or reframe a task, return a diagnosis and rewritten prompt. When they ask for deeper analysis, a better artifact, or execution, apply the method and produce that work; do not stop at a prompt rewrite. Reframing alone does not authorize implementation, new data access, installations, purchases, ongoing monitoring, or external actions.

Choose where ambition helps

Use depth by default. Consider the other lenses only when they address a specific weakness in the request; do not force all four into every task.

Lens	Useful question	Boundary
Speed	Can existing work be done with less delay or repetition?	A faster workflow may already satisfy the request; do not add analysis for its own sake.
Altitude	What decision or outcome is this artifact supposed to enable?	Keep a required artifact. Offer a different workflow as an option, without silently substituting it.
Depth	Which underlying evidence or professional technique would materially improve this result?	Prefer the smallest method that resolves the important uncertainty.
Range	Could a method from another field expose a blind spot?	Name the contribution and how it will be checked; avoid a cast of imaginary experts.

Altitude is especially useful when a task is a proxy for a decision. For creative work, respect the desired experience or artifact as an end in itself rather than inventing a business outcome.

Diagnose before rewriting

Answer these four questions concretely for this task:

1. Missing expert work. What would a strong practitioner investigate or produce that the request omits? Name the consequential omission and why it matters, rather than adopting an expert persona or vocabulary.
2. Primary evidence. What is the closest useful source to the underlying reality: original text, events, measurements, code, interviews, or visual references? Separate evidence already available from evidence to request. Raw material is valuable when it resolves uncertainty; do not demand an entire dataset when a relevant sample or existing artifact suffices.
3. Methods and instruments. Name a specific operation, its input, and its output. Choose a tool for the operation, not for its prestige. Check availability before claiming it can be used; express unavailable tooling as a requirement or provide a workable alternative.
4. Independent check. What observable evidence could contradict the result, beyond the authoring model's confidence or the user's approval? Specify the check, comparator, and acceptance criterion where justified. Examples include held-out observations, a reproduction, a relevant benchmark, a source comparison, or a task-based audience evaluation. Another model's agreement can help review but is not ground truth.

Challenge the most important assumption. Distinguish a hypothesis from a finding and correlation from causation. For creative or interpretive work, separate factual/source checks from judgments of taste; no single metric proves artistic quality.

When a target seems difficult, identify the limiting assumption and a bounded experiment. A stretch goal can guide exploration, but do not call an unmeasured target feasible or keep retrying without new evidence. For stalled work, isolate the uncertain step into smaller questions with checkable intermediate outputs.

Write the executable prompt

Return a short explanation of the material changes, then a self-contained prompt the user can paste into a fresh session when a rewrite is requested. For an execution request, use these elements to guide the work rather than adding an unsolicited prompt artifact. Include:

• The outcome and requested deliverable, with the original constraints.
• The evidence to inspect, identifying supplied inputs and missing inputs.
• The consequential expert work and specific methods it requires.
• How to challenge the key assumption and verify the result independently.
• How to report uncertainty, evidence gaps, and a stopping condition suited to the task's time, budget, and risk.

Use only the elements that matter; do not turn this into a mandatory long template. Keep optional changes in scope separate from the main prompt. If the original request is already rigorous, say so and make only the changes that improve execution. For a simple constrained request, a short rewrite or no rewrite can be the right result.

Mark proposed checks as proposed. Claim a result is verified only after the check has actually run and its output supports the claim. If essential evidence is unavailable, name the gap and provide the best bounded next step instead of fabricating a conclusion.

For worked examples, routing boundaries, and the source analysis, read references/examples-and-source.md when calibrating an unfamiliar task or explaining the method's origin.

Attribution

Adapted from Felix Rieseberg's How to be more ambitious: A tutorial for humans with models (13 October 2026), surfaced by CG's X post. The source proposes four ambition lenses; this skill adds an executable brief workflow and explicit limits on scope and validation claims.