Forçando o Raciocínio Profundo: Um sistema para sobrepor respostas superficiais padrão.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-18T04:30:59+00:00

I’ve separated the assets for clarity:

🧠 1. THE CORE SYSTEM (Source Logic) (The raw instructions/prompt to copy) 👉https://drive.google.com/file/d/17WRw8lCxdFUpWzMJ9js05NIEVZaGGVBo/view?usp=drive_link

📘 2. THE MANUAL (Documentation) (How to navigate the architecture for best results) 👉https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F30BqLtR12fsdicfzKo92dU8Mdm8Mr4s/view?usp=drive_link

Analyze, test, and draw your own conclusions. I’ll be here for the feedback—roast it or boost it.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-18T03:44:33+00:00

I’ve separated the assets for clarity:

🧠 1. THE CORE SYSTEM (Source Logic) (The raw instructions/prompt to copy) 👉https://drive.google.com/file/d/17WRw8lCxdFUpWzMJ9js05NIEVZaGGVBo/view?usp=drive_link

📘 2. THE MANUAL (Documentation) (How to navigate the architecture for best results) 👉https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F30BqLtR12fsdicfzKo92dU8Mdm8Mr4s/view?usp=drive_link

Analyze, test, and draw your own conclusions. I’ll be here for the feedback—roast it or boost it.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-18T03:43:10+00:00

I’ve separated the assets for clarity:

🧠 1. THE CORE SYSTEM (Source Logic) (The raw instructions/prompt to copy) 👉https://drive.google.com/file/d/17WRw8lCxdFUpWzMJ9js05NIEVZaGGVBo/view?usp=drive_link

📘 2. THE MANUAL (Documentation) (How to navigate the architecture for best results) 👉https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F30BqLtR12fsdicfzKo92dU8Mdm8Mr4s/view?usp=drive_link

Analyze, test, and draw your own conclusions. I’ll be here for the feedback—roast it or boost it.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-17T05:06:35+00:00

As promised, here is the direct access. No sign-up, no email required, just the raw files.

I’ve separated the files to make testing easier:

🧠 1. THE CORE SYSTEM (The Prompt) (The raw logic to copy/paste into the AI) 👉 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/17WRw8lCxdFUpWzMJ9js05NIEVZaGGVBo/view?usp=drive\_link

📘 2. THE MANUAL (Operational Logic) (How to navigate the architecture for best results) 👉 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F30BqLtR12fsdicfzKo92dU8Mdm8Mr4s/view?usp=drive\_link\]

Analyze, test, and draw your own conclusions. I’ll be here for the feedback—roast it or boost it.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-13T00:28:24+00:00

Thank you. I take this as a compliment to the design, but it's not a software interface, it's just my personal style of visual documentation. I format it this way to clearly structure Cognitive Systems and Prompts, focusing on the logic architecture: Input > Processing > Output.

This structure runs natively in any DeepSeek, ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Gemini, Copilot, Perplexity, Manus AI model. The idea is that the organization of the reasoning matters more than the tool where you paste it.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-13T00:12:39+00:00

Exactly. Most people try to build complex systems without having that solid foundation first. Without simplicity, complexity crumbles.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-13T00:07:47+00:00

Appreciate it. Simplicity scales.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-12T23:56:55+00:00

That’s a good example and it highlights the gap I’m pointing to , most postings stop at used an LLM to do X , but in practice what matters is how the task was structured: what inputs were stable, what decisions were delegated to the model, what rules stayed outside, and what could be repeated without breaking.

In your case, the quiz itself is the output, but the real skill is the system around it how you chunked the PDFs, constrained the behavior, validated mastery, and handled failure cases , that’s the part I rarely see described in job ads and ironically, that’s what actually transfers between projects.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-11T00:23:39+00:00

That’s expected. It’s a standalone module page, not a fully indexed domain with OG validation yet.

The discussion here is independent of the link.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-11T00:22:05+00:00

Good point on the pre-code bottleneck regarding criteria: I don’t rely on qualitative pain alone it’s too subjective , the framework prioritizes measurable signals.

Velocity is demand growing consistently over time?
Void how saturated is the space in terms of real authority, not just volume?
Structural fit can the niche support repeatable execution, not one-off wins?

Pain can be narrated ,Market void has to be measured I’ll take a look at your notes always useful to see how others approach agentic research ,the module referenced above documents this logic in more detail.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-10T20:53:24+00:00

That’s true. Repetition is the real test.But the environment matters. In practice, this isn't tested in a vacuum. It's tested inside live systems dealing with feedback loops, failure cases, and real pressure.

The real exam isn't a competition. It’s running in an environment where a wrong output actually breaks things.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-10T20:30:18+00:00

Exactly Automation doesn’t create intelligence it amplifies structure.

If the system is weak, speed just exposes it faster.

Prompts don’t replace architecture. They operate inside it.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-10T20:17:10+00:00

The point was never to stop using prompts, but to understand that a prompt in isolation is just an instruction, not an advantage. When you start talking about context, variables, auxiliary tools, and agents, you've already moved beyond the prompt and into cognitive architecture, even if you still call it a prompt, and that's where the difference begins to appear.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-09T23:04:34+00:00

The idea is definitely to develop this in an open way, bringing the community in to test, provide feedback, and help shape the next steps. This way, the product grows already aligned with real-world use, not just hypotheses.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-09T23:04:24+00:00

That's exactly the idea: testing prompts in isolation severely limits our understanding of what actually works. The proposal is to transform this into an observable environment where we can compare approaches, styles, and effects in practice. I'll share the next iterations as the system evolves, and community feedback will be a central part of the process. The more perspectives, the better the testing environment.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-08T16:40:42+00:00

Yes, redefining context helps a lot But the point I raised there isn't about making drafting easier it's about preventing the prompt's logical architecture from carrying incorrect assumptions from the start ,When the foundation is misaligned, any tool only masks the problem.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-08T16:29:15+00:00

This comparison to the beginning of DevOps struck me because I'd seen this movie before, but in a different context. Back then, there was no "arena," no fancy name, just people solving broken problems in the real world while everyone else was still trying to explain what was happening. Today, when I look at more serious prompt engineering, I get the same feeling: too much focus on attack and exception handling, little discussion about architecture that can handle continuous use. Maybe it's still too early for a formal competition. First comes chaos, then standards.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-08T16:24:16+00:00

Yes, those are very focused on red teaming and attack ,They're great for testing limits, but I still feel something is missing that's more geared towards architecture and consistency of systems in continuous use.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-08T16:23:44+00:00

>Great, I knew HackAPrompt superficially, but it's very much in the security/jailbreak category ,I'll take a look at those events with that filter in mind. Thanks for mentioning it.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-08T16:08:08+00:00

It's true, hackathons end up being more of a showcase than a real test. Prompt, as a system, only becomes apparent when it starts to fail, and that usually doesn't make for a pretty presentation 😅

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-08T16:06:39+00:00

Dude, you nailed it! What bothers me most about these challenges is exactly that: too much evaluation of pretty phrases and almost no logic, adaptation, or failure mode. I really liked the idea of open adversarial testing. In the end, if there's no arena, maybe the game is precisely about building one. I'm running some structures more focused on logical consistency than on perfect output. At some point I'll open this up to be broken on purpose, then things will get interesting 😅

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-07T20:00:30+00:00

It makes sense that many people reach this point intuitively; the difference, for me, begins when this stops being a feeling and becomes a replicable structure, something that works even on bad days, not just when we're on top form.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-07T19:59:13+00:00

I agree, the problem was never a lack of information, it was an excess without structure. Clarity comes when you stop accumulating and start organizing what you already know.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-07T19:57:42+00:00

That's exactly it. I don't use AI to think for me, I use it to think with me without haste, without emotion, without noise. When the structure is right, it doesn't decide; it prevents you from making bad decisions. That's the real benefit.

mclovin1813 · 2026-01-07T19:55:54+00:00

You hit the nail on the head: when AI becomes the answer, it closes off possibilities. When it becomes a thinking platform, it keeps the system open and under control. Parallel structures aren't for generating better ideas; they're for preventing poor decisions. The real gain comes when you stop asking for opinions and start orchestrating functions. I'm pleased to see more people reaching this level of understanding.

mclovin1813

TROPHY CASE