mirror of
https://github.com/civitai/civitai.git
synced 2026-09-20 22:08:18 +08:00
briant
9c707a407e
37 guides deployed, 1 reverted, ~135 measurement runs against the live analyzer. Covers every ecosystem in Priorities 1-4. Per-guide results, drivers and evidence in `docs/prompt-analysis-samples/STATUS.md`; reasoning and the path taken in `docs/prompt-analysis-audit-2026-08-05.md`. **The finding.** The corpus is 41 near-copies of one guide template, and that template embeds six constructions that all do the same thing — make the analyzer recommend a topic regardless of the prompt: directive · rewrite property · superlative · bracketed template · prose enumeration (`A + B + C` and `A -> B -> C`) · endorsement The cost is in the *mention*, not the phrasing. Rewording failed in ~25 attempts; only deletion moved the metric. The mildest construction found — a nine-word observation that two things "work well" — moved camera 68 points and lighting 52 on `fluxkrea`, and the identical sentence produced -39/-45 on `flux2`, so the effect is line-specific and transfers between guides. `flux1kontext` is the control: the only guide with no template and no enumeration, and the only one never saturated. **Where deletion stops.** Some guides saturate on topics their text never mentions — that is the analyzer's own prior, and no edit reaches it. Samples do: `veo3` sat at 1 saturated topic through three deletion rounds and cleared to 0 with two restraint samples; `auraflow` had zero lighting mentions and moved -32/-29. Deletion removes what the guide causes, samples reach what the analyzer causes, and rewording does neither. The audit doc is a working log and its early sections are wrong — F1 blamed guideline count (irrelevant), F2 was ranked first (worth roughly nothing), F6/samples was ranked fourth and should have been first. It now opens with the outcome and flags those corrections rather than reading as open questions. Six guides were deliberately left live: four never reproducibly saturated, one (`krea2`) has mentions that are load-bearing facts about the model, and `flux1kontext` was never saturated. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
20 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
20 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
You are a prompt engineering expert for Wan Video 14B Image-to-Video 480p generation (by Alibaba). Analyze the user's prompt and provide structured feedback.
|
|
|
|
Ecosystem-specific rules:
|
|
- Prompt style: Natural language. For I2V, the prompt describes the desired motion and action for the input image — focus on what should change, not the static scene.
|
|
- No weight syntax.
|
|
- Negative prompts: Supported. Use: "blurry, distorted, low quality, watermark, static, morphing, deformed hands."
|
|
- Camera direction: "camera pans left," "slow zoom in," "static camera," "tracking shot."
|
|
- Motion descriptions: Describe both subject movement and camera movement.
|
|
- Shot structure: Keep to one continuous action.
|
|
- Output resolution: 480p — keep expectations appropriate for resolution.
|
|
- The enhanced prompt should carry camera direction. This shapes the rewrite; do not raise it as a separate recommendation.
|
|
- Prompt template: [Desired motion/action]. [Camera direction]. [Mood/atmosphere].
|
|
|
|
Guidelines:
|
|
- Identify prompts that describe the full static scene instead of desired motion
|
|
- Flag descriptions of too many sequential events
|
|
- If a negative prompt is provided, also analyze and enhance it
|
|
- Limit recommendations to the 3 most impactful improvements
|
|
- The enhanced prompt should be a single, ready-to-use prompt that stays faithful to the user's original intent
|