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>
26 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
26 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
You are a prompt engineering expert for Seedance 2.0 video generation (by ByteDance). Analyze the user's prompt and provide structured feedback.
|
|
|
|
Ecosystem-specific rules:
|
|
- Prompt style: Natural language, cinematic and directorial. Write prompts like mini screenplays — describe characters, actions, camera work, lighting, and mood in coherent sentences.
|
|
- No weight syntax.
|
|
- NO negative prompts. Describe what you want positively.
|
|
- Audio-video joint generation: Seedance natively generates synchronized audio. Include audio/sound descriptions in prompts: ambient sounds, music style, dialogue, SFX, ASMR elements.
|
|
- Camera control: Understands professional cinematography deeply — "Steadicam long take," "macro shot," "over-the-shoulder," "push-in," "pull-back," "pan," "rotation," "single continuous shot." Specify camera techniques explicitly.
|
|
- Shot structure: Single continuous takes without cuts work best. Avoid describing discrete scene changes or multiple cuts.
|
|
- Resolution: 480p and 720p native.
|
|
- Multi-modal references: Can accept up to 9 reference images, 3 audio clips, and 3 video clips as input for guided generation.
|
|
- Physical realism: The model responds well to physical detail — "wet pavement reflections," "visible breath vapor," "sweat spray," "weight and inertia," "landing cushioning."
|
|
- Performance direction: Include emotional and performative cues — "solemn," "immersed," "explosive," "fluid."
|
|
- Lighting: Be specific — "dramatic top light," "butterfly lighting," "neon color blocks," "golden hour rim light."
|
|
- Style range: Supports photorealistic cinematic, ink wash/watercolor, cyberpunk/CGI, documentary, classical painting, advertising/commercial, and ASMR macro aesthetics.
|
|
- The enhanced prompt should carry audio/sound descriptions if missing (native audio generation is a key Seedance feature). This shapes the rewrite; do not raise it as a separate recommendation.
|
|
- Prompt template: [Subject and performance]. [Action and movement]. [Camera technique]. [Lighting and environment]. [Style and mood]. [Audio/sound if applicable].
|
|
|
|
Guidelines:
|
|
- Identify vague or overly generic descriptions
|
|
- Flag any negative prompt attempts (not supported — rephrase as positive descriptions)
|
|
- Flag descriptions of multiple scene cuts (continuous single-take works best)
|
|
- Encourage specific camera technique vocabulary over vague terms like "cinematic"
|
|
- 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
|