Cette page est affichée en anglais. Une traduction française est en cours.
研究Oct 4, 2026·5 min de lecture

Glossary to Beginner Reference Prompt

A reusable prompt that turns your own messy term list into a plain-language beginner glossary with examples, cautions and verification checks.

Prêt pour agents

Installation agent prête

Cet actif peut être installé après choix du runtime, vérification du plan et exécution de la commande adaptée.

Native · 96/100Policy : autoriser
Surface agent
Tout agent MCP/CLI
Type
Prompt
Installation
Single
Confiance
Confiance : Established
Point d'entrée
PROMPT.md
Commande d'installation directe
npx -y tokrepo@latest install 864d531f-3a31-4b83-9161-7c68cec841f8 --target codex

À exécuter après confirmation du plan en dry-run.

Start here

This is a plain-text prompt. You paste it into an ordinary AI chat that accepts text — no terminal, no API, no setup.

What to paste

  1. Your TERM LIST: one industry term per line, each with whatever rough notes you already have. Messy is fine.
  2. Optional CONTEXT: who the readers are, the field, and how the reference will be used.

Paste the full prompt text first, then your list and context, and send.

How to check the output

  • Every term you pasted appears exactly once.
  • Terms with thin notes are marked def_uncertain or Low confidence, not invented.
  • Every example is labelled illustrative.
  • No numbers, vendors or product claims appear that you did not supply.
  • Gaps and the verification checklist name your specific weak terms.

What this does

It converts a raw glossary into compact beginner entries. Each entry has a plain definition, a short usage example marked as illustrative, a likely-confusion caution, and a confidence label with a reason. After the entries it adds a study grouping, a gaps list, and a verification checklist.

Only your pasted material is used. Nothing is added that you did not give.

Prerequisites and permissions

  • Required: a chat tool that accepts pasted text, and your own term list.
  • No accounts, credentials, files or external actions are needed.
  • The prompt tells the assistant not to claim authority and not to tell you to take external action.

Limitations

  • It is a study draft, not an authoritative reference.
  • Thin or conflicting notes produce uncertainty flags, not answers.
  • Illustrative examples are not real quotes or product claims.
  • Conflicting notes are shown side by side, not resolved.
  • Source reviewed; runtime not tested.

FAQ

Can I use a partial or messy list? Yes. Messy notes are expected; weak items are flagged instead of guessed.

Can I share the result? Yes, as a study draft. Have a human expert, official source or textbook confirm entries first.

Complete reusable prompt

Build a Beginner-Friendly Glossary Reference From Your Own Term List

You are helping me convert a raw glossary of industry terms into a beginner reference I can actually study or share. Work only from the material I paste. Do not add terms, definitions, vendors, prices, statistics, or product claims I did not give you.

What I will paste

  1. A TERM LIST: one industry term per line, each with the rough definition or notes I already have (may be messy, abbreviated, or partial).
  2. Optional CONTEXT: who the readers are, the field, and how the reference will be used.

Your task

For each term, produce a compact entry with these fixed fields:

  • Term: as I wrote it.
  • Plain definition: one or two sentences a beginner can follow, using only my notes plus common everyday wording. If my notes are too thin to define it honestly, do not guess; write "def_uncertain" and say what is missing.
  • Say-it-like-this example: one short realistic usage in a sentence or a mini scenario. Clearly mark it as illustrative, not a real quote or a claim about a specific company or product.
  • Watch out: the most likely beginner confusion for that term, grounded in my notes. If you cannot infer one, write "no_caution_grounded".
  • Confidence: High, Medium, or Low for the definition, with a one-line reason tied to the quality of my notes.

After the entries, add:

  • Study grouping: cluster the terms into 2-5 themes so a beginner can learn them in a sensible order.
  • Gaps: list terms whose notes were too vague, conflicting, or missing.
  • Verification checklist: 3-6 concrete things the reader should confirm with a human expert, official source, or textbook before relying on an entry.

Hard rules

  • Never present an illustrative example as a real-world fact.
  • Never fill gaps with invented definitions, dates, version numbers, or product behavior.
  • Keep one term per entry; do not merge definitions.
  • If my notes contradict each other, show both and flag the conflict instead of silently choosing one.
  • This is a study draft only. Do not claim it is authoritative, and do not tell me to take any external action.

Output format

Use Markdown. Put the entries under a heading "Entries", the clusters under "Study grouping", the problem terms under "Gaps", and the checklist under "Verification checklist". Keep each entry short enough to read on a phone.

Mini fictional example

TERM LIST:

  • Churn — customers who leave; usually measured over a period
  • Onboarding — getting a new user started; sometimes includes setup steps
  • SLA — an agreement about service level CONTEXT: readers are new customer-support hires; used as a first-week study sheet.

Illustrative output shape (shortened): Term: Churn Plain definition: The rate at which customers stop using a product or service, usually over a set period. (from my notes) Say-it-like-this example: Illustrative, not real data: "Our churn this quarter looks higher than last." Watch out: Beginners often treat churn as a single number, but it depends on the period you measure. Confidence: Medium — my notes name the idea but not the exact formula.

Self-checks before you return the answer

Pass/fail checks tied to the example above:

  1. Every input term appears exactly once.
  2. Any term defined with weaker notes than "Churn" is marked def_uncertain or Low confidence rather than guessed.
  3. Each example is explicitly labeled illustrative, not real.
  4. No invented numbers, vendors, or product claims appear anywhere.
  5. Gaps and the verification checklist name specific weak terms from my list, not generic advice. If any check fails, fix the output before returning it.

References and reuse

Original TokRepo prompt · CC BY 4.0. Reference documents retain their own rights.

🙏

Source et remerciements

Original TokRepo prompt, licensed CC BY 4.0. Reference context: ChatGPT release notes, reviewed 2026-10-04. Source reviewed; runtime not tested.

Fil de discussion

Connectez-vous pour rejoindre la discussion.
Aucun commentaire pour l'instant. Soyez le premier à partager votre avis.

Actifs similaires