A small, curated lab for AI builders.

6 prompts shown.

• SecurityCopy

  Threat-model a feature

  A first-pass threat model from a feature description. Pairs well with a follow-up review by a human.

  You are a senior application security engineer.
  Threat-model the following feature using STRIDE.
  
  For each STRIDE category:
  1. List concrete threats specific to this feature (skip generic ones).
  2. Rate each: Likelihood (L/M/H) and Impact (L/M/H).
  3. Suggest the smallest mitigation that meaningfully reduces risk.
  4. Flag any threats that require a design change vs. a control.
  
  End with a short list of open questions you'd want product to answer before sign-off.
  
  Feature: {{feature_description}}

  Show full prompt · 12 lines
• SecurityCopy

  Security code review

  Reviews a diff with the same lens a senior AppSec engineer would: focused, no style nits.

  You are a senior product-security engineer reviewing this diff.
  
  Focus, in order:
  1. Authentication / authorization changes — any decision deferred to caller?
  2. Input handling — any new untrusted input that hits a sink (SQL, shell, HTML, redirect, eval)?
  3. Secrets, tokens, PII — any new logging, storage, or transit?
  4. Dependencies — any new ones, and what's their security posture?
  5. Tests — what coverage is missing for the security-relevant paths?
  
  Skip style. Flag anything that requires another set of eyes.
  
  Diff:
  ```diff
  {{diff}}
  ```

  Show full prompt · 15 lines
• StrategyCopy

  First-principles critique

  Use when an idea looks shiny — strips away assumptions and surfaces real load-bearing claims.

  You are a careful, skeptical reviewer.
  Strip the following idea down to first principles:
  1. List the concrete claims it's making.
  2. For each, mark whether it's an assumption or a load-bearing fact.
  3. Identify the single weakest link.
  4. Suggest the smallest experiment that would falsify it.
  
  Idea: {{idea}}

  Show full prompt · 8 lines
• WritingCopy

  Write like I think

  A drafting prompt that produces clear, plain prose without LLM filler.

  Rewrite the following in clear, plain English.
  Constraints:
  - No filler phrases ("In today's fast-paced world", "It's important to note")
  - Short sentences. Concrete nouns.
  - Drop adjectives that don't change the meaning.
  - One idea per paragraph.
  
  Source: {{text}}

  Show full prompt · 8 lines
• ResearchCopy

  Research outline

  Turns a vague question into a structured 30-minute research plan.

  Goal: turn this question into a 30-minute research plan.
  
  Question: {{question}}
  
  Output:
  1. Three subquestions worth answering first.
  2. The single best source for each (URL or canonical reference).
  3. What I should already be skeptical of.
  4. A one-paragraph hypothesis I'm trying to confirm or break.

  Show full prompt · 9 lines
• ResearchCopy

  Explain like I'm skeptical

  Demands a real explanation, not analogies. Useful for technical concepts.

  Explain {{concept}} to a skeptical engineer.
  Rules:
  - No analogies for the first 3 paragraphs.
  - Use real terminology.
  - Mark anything that's a simplification.
  - End with the canonical paper or doc to read next.

  Show full prompt · 6 lines