Three Frameworks for Ordinary People to Achieve AI Capability Leap: Say Goodbye to the Dilemma of 'Repeating Inputs Every Day'

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-04-22Обновлено 2026-04-22

Введение

Summary: This article outlines three frameworks for maximizing AI efficiency, moving beyond basic prompt usage. 1. **Three-Layer Evolution**: Users progress from (1) **Prompt** (one-off instructions, reset each session), to (2) **Project** (context-aware within a specific project), to (3) **Skill** (permanent, auto-applied knowledge). Most users stagnate at the first layer, repeating the same instructions daily with no cumulative improvement. Skills transform the AI from a chat tool into a personalized work system. 2. **Transaction vs. Compound Interest Mindset**: Using prompts is a linear transaction—effort and output are 1:1, and stopping resets progress. Investing time in building Skills is compound interest; a small initial time investment pays continuous dividends, as each Skill permanently elevates the AI's baseline performance. 3. **Thin Harness, Fat Skills**: The system architecture should prioritize thick, well-defined Skills (90% of the value—containing processes, standards, and domain knowledge) and a thin "harness" (the minimal technical environment). Avoid over-engineering the toolchain while neglecting the AI's actual knowledge. Skills are permanent assets that automatically improve with model updates. The key takeaway: Identify tasks you repeat, encode them into Skills (using tools like Claude's Skill Creator), and shift focus from daily prompting to building a compounding, self-improving AI system.

There are two types of AI users: One opens Claude every day, inputs a long background description, gets a response, and closes the page. The next day, they come back and input the same description again. After 30 days, their efficiency remains exactly the same as on day one.

The other also uses Claude, but after 30 days, their AI has become something completely different—automatically writing in their tone, automatically outputting in their format, automatically applying the methodologies they've taught it. And the time they spend 'instructing the AI' actually decreases day by day.

The same tool, the same model, the same price. How did the gap emerge?

It's not a gap in skill. It's a gap in cognitive frameworks.

Today, I'll introduce three frameworks. Understand them, and your way of using AI will fundamentally change.

Framework One: The Three-Layer Evolution Theory—Which Layer Are You On?

There are three layers to using AI. The vast majority of people are stuck on the first layer forever.

Layer One: Prompt

A Prompt is the temporary instruction you type into the chat box. "You are a senior copywriter," "Use a concise style," "Give me three options."

It's effective for the moment. It disappears when the session closes.

This is like explaining who you are to an amnesiac genius every morning. It is indeed smart, but tomorrow it won't recognize you again. Your tone preferences, brand guidelines, output format, industry terminology—all reset to zero, all need to be re-explained.

What does 30 days of this look like? Day 1: wrote a good Prompt, got a good result. Day 15: you've repeated inputting roughly the same context 15 times. Day 30: your productivity is exactly the same as Day 1. Zero accumulation.

And on a tired day, you'll miss details, and the output quality drops. On a busy day, you might skip the context altogether, and Claude gives you a generic, universal version.

You yourself are the bottleneck. Every single conversation.

Layer Two: Project

In a Project, you upload reference documents, style guides, system instructions. Every conversation within this Project knows your context.

This is like giving a new employee an onboarding manual. Much better than explaining verbally every day.

But there's still a problem: you have to remember to open the correct Project. Your knowledge is locked inside specific Projects; switch to another scenario and you have to start from scratch.

Layer Three: Skill

A Skill is a structured file—you write it once, install it once, and afterwards, Claude automatically triggers it when it recognizes a relevant task.

No need for you to open a specific Project. No need for you to input any prompt. Claude just knows what to do.

This is like training an employee once, and it's effective forever.

All three layers use the same Claude. But the first layer is a chat tool, the third layer is a work system.

So, after understanding this layering, how do you jump from the first layer to the third? This requires the second framework.

Framework Two: Transactional Thinking vs. Compound Thinking

This is the most important of the three frameworks. It's not a tool usage technique, but a cognitive model.

Prompt is a transaction. You invest time writing an instruction, get one output. Next time, invest again, get another output. Input and output have a 1:1 linear relationship. You stop investing, output immediately drops to zero.

Skill is compound interest. You invest 10 minutes on day one writing a Skill, and on day two it's already working. By day 15, you've accumulated 3 Skills, each building on the previous ones. By day 30, your Claude is different from everyone else's.

The setup cost is one hour dispersed over the first week. The return is that every subsequent conversation runs on a higher baseline.

The work from the first week is still paying returns in the sixth month. This is compound interest.

The transactional thinker asks daily: "How do I use AI to do this well today?"

The compound thinker asks: "How do I make the AI know how to do this forever?"

A difference in wording. But if you use AI with a compound mindset, after 30 days you'll discover something magical: the time you spend "teaching the AI" decreases, while the work the AI helps you complete increases. Because every Skill you taught before is continuously effective.

This leads to a practical question: How exactly should a Skill be written? What should go in, and what should stay out? This is the third framework.

Framework Three: Thin Harness, Fat Skills—Put 90% of Your Effort in the Right Place

This framework comes from YC's head, Garry Tan, who distilled it into an extremely concise architectural principle: Thin Harness, Fat Skills.

What does it mean?

When you work with AI, you are actually building a three-layer system—whether you realize it or not:

Top Layer: Skills. The operating manuals you teach the AI—processes, judgment criteria, domain knowledge. This is where 90% of the value lies.

Middle Layer: Harness. The program or environment that runs the AI—calling the model, managing context, reading/writing files. Keep it extremely thin.

Bottom Layer: Deterministic Tools. Database queries, code compilation, mathematical calculations—operations where the input is the same, the output is the same, every single time.

The principle is: Push intelligence into the Skills. Push execution into the deterministic tools. Keep the middle Harness as thin as possible.

What's the anti-pattern? Thick Harness, Thin Skills. You've seen that situation: spending a lot of time debugging toolchains, configuring various plugins, optimizing API calls, but the content that actually teaches the AI "how to do this well"—not a single word written.

The result is: the toolchain is beautiful, but the quality of the AI's output is not fundamentally different from naked chatting. Because you optimized the pipeline, but what flows through it is still tap water.

The model's intelligence is already sufficient. It fails not because it's not smart enough, but because it doesn't understand your specific context—your norms, your conventions, the particular shape of your problem. Skill solves this problem.

Another important corollary of this framework is: When the next, more powerful model is released, all your Skills will automatically become better.

Because Skills define processes and standards; improvements in underlying judgment power will make these processes execute more accurately. You don't need to rewrite anything. A model upgrade for you is not "having to learn again," but "my system got a free upgrade."

Skill is a permanent asset.

How to Use the Three Frameworks Together

Step One: Use the Three-Layer Evolution Theory to locate yourself.

Which layer are you on now? If you're re-entering context every conversation—you're on the first layer. If you're using Projects but no Skills—you're on the second layer. Knowing where you are tells you where to go.

Step Two: Use compound thinking to find your Skill candidate list.

Recall your conversations with AI over the past month. Which instructions have you repeated? Which contexts have you explained over and over? Which format requirements do you have to remind it of every time? Which processes have you manually guided step-by-step?

If you've repeated it more than three times, that's a Skill waiting to be created.

There's an even more radical principle: If you had the AI do something, and it's something you'll do again in the future—the first time should become a Skill. Do it manually the first time, review the output, and if satisfied, immediately encode it into a Skill file.

The test standard: If you need to ask for the same thing a second time, the system has failed.

Step Three: Use Thin Harness, Fat Skills to decide where to focus your energy.

Don't spend three days debugging a toolchain and then run tasks with a naked Prompt. Do the opposite—spend three days writing your core Skill, and use the simplest toolchain possible.

What does a Skill actually look like? Extremely simple, it's a text file:

Name—What it's called. Description—What it does (one sentence). This is the most crucial part—Claude uses this sentence to judge when to trigger automatically. Instructions—How to do it (specific steps). Constraints—What not to do.

A Skill doesn't tell the AI "what to do"—that's the Prompt's job. A Skill tells the AI "how to do it".

Prompt says: "Help me write a competitor analysis." Skill says: "When doing competitor analysis, first identify 3-5 core competitors, compare them across three dimensions: functionality/pricing/market positioning, output in SWOT format, attach data sources to each conclusion, and finally provide 3 actionable recommendations."

The Prompt provides the task. The Skill provides the methodology. When the two work together, the AI transforms from an "intern waiting for you to tell them what to do every step" into an "employee who knows how to do the job."

And the same Skill can be called repeatedly with different inputs—input a competitor company, you get a competitor analysis; input an industry trend, you get a trend report; input an investment target, you get a due diligence brief. Same process, different objects, completely different outputs.

This is not Prompt engineering. This is software design with Markdown.

How to build your first Skill

The fastest way: Let the AI build it for you.

Claude has a built-in "Skill Creator"—a Skill that creates Skills. You just need to say: "Help me create a Skill for [your specific task]."

Claude will interview you, refine the process, and output a structured .md file. Save it and you can use it.

In one afternoon, you can set up your entire personal Skill system. Each takes 10 to 15 minutes. Writing style, competitor analysis, meeting minutes, email responses, report generation, content calendar—all together less than two hours.

The compound return on these two hours has no upper limit.

Finally

Three frameworks, three sentences:

Three-Layer Evolution Theory: From Prompt to Project to Skill, the same AI, three completely different experiences. Which layer are you on?

Transaction vs. Compound Interest: Prompt is a transaction that resets daily. Skill is an asset that appreciates daily. Which do you choose?

Thin Harness, Fat Skills: Don't spend energy on the toolchain. Put 90% of your attention into writing good Skills—that's where the value is.

Every Skill you build is a permanent upgrade to your AI system. It doesn't degrade, doesn't forget, and automatically becomes stronger when the model updates.

Prompt is a verbal instruction. Skill is an SOP manual. One resets daily, one compounds daily.

Starting today: Find that task you've repeated more than three times. Spend 10 minutes, write your first Skill.

Then you'll never want to go back to using only Prompts again.

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat are the three frameworks for achieving an AI capability leap as described in the article?

AThe three frameworks are: 1. The Three-Layer Evolution Theory (Prompt, Project, Skill), 2. Transactional Thinking vs. Compound Thinking, and 3. Thin Harness, Fat Skills.

QAccording to the article, what is the key difference between using AI with a 'Prompt' mindset and a 'Skill' mindset?

AThe 'Prompt' mindset is transactional, where each interaction is a one-time exchange that resets to zero the next day. The 'Skill' mindset is about compound growth, where an initial time investment creates a permanent asset that continuously improves and adds value with every use.

QWhat does the 'Thin Harness, Fat Skills' principle mean in the context of building an AI system?

AIt means that the majority of effort and value (90%) should be placed in creating rich, detailed 'Skills' (the operational knowledge and processes for the AI), while the 'Harness' (the underlying program or environment that runs the AI) should be kept as simple and minimal as possible.

QHow does the article define a 'Skill' and how is it different from a 'Prompt'?

AA 'Skill' is a structured, reusable file that teaches the AI *how* to perform a specific task, including its methodology, constraints, and format. A 'Prompt' is a temporary, one-off instruction telling the AI *what* to do for a single session.

QWhat is the main benefit of building a library of Skills, according to the article?

AThe main benefit is compound growth. Skills are permanent assets that do not degrade or reset. They automatically become more powerful with each model update, and they work together to create a personalized AI system that operates from a higher baseline of knowledge and efficiency with each use.

Похожее

Why Haven't Forex Stablecoins Taken Off?

Why FX Stablecoins Never Took Off: A Path Forward via Synthetic FX Despite the explosive growth of stablecoin-powered digital banking, which has seen ~$6B in VC investment and a 24x surge in crypto card spending in under a year, a major limitation persists: these banks are essentially dollar-only accounts. This leaves 95-99% of global accounts, which are denominated in non-USD currencies, underserved. Attempts to create native foreign currency (FX) stablecoins (like EURC) have largely failed, with total FX stablecoin TVL at ~$600M compared to $400B for USD stablecoins—a 700x gap. These FX tokens face critical challenges: fragile pegs due to low liquidity, limited exchange/FinTech acceptance, poor on/off-ramps, complex regional compliance, and a chicken-and-egg adoption problem. The article argues that the solution lies not in competing with entrenched USD stablecoin networks (USDT/USDC), but in adopting a synthetic FX model inspired by traditional finance. Specifically, it advocates for Mark-to-Market Non-Deliverable Forwards (NDFs)—cash-settled FX derivatives that allow users to maintain underlying USD stablecoin holdings while having their account balance and P&L denominated in a foreign currency. This approach offers key advantages: strong oracle-based pegs, retention of deep USD stablecoin liquidity and yield, superior on/off-ramps, scalability to any currency with a reliable feed, and capital efficiency. It mirrors how modern institutional FX markets operate. Primary use cases for on-chain NDFs include: 1. **Digital Banks/Wallets:** Enabling multi-currency accounts for international users without leaving the USD stablecoin ecosystem, boosting deposits and retention. 2. **FX Carry Trade Vaults:** Offering access to sovereign interest rate differentials (e.g., earning yield on BRL) in a more stable and scalable format than crypto-native products like Ethena. 3. **Global Enterprise Payments:** Allowing merchants to receive payments in local currency equivalents while settling in USD stablecoins, similar to services offered by Stripe for fiat. The conclusion is that synthetic FX, not native FX stablecoins, is the viable path to integrating foreign exchange into the growing stablecoin digital banking landscape, potentially unlocking the next phase of institutional DeFi and multi-trillion-dollar global adoption.

链捕手29 мин. назад

Why Haven't Forex Stablecoins Taken Off?

链捕手29 мин. назад

IOSG Founder: Web3 Is 'Losing Blood,' How Can Practitioners Survive Better?

IOSG Founder: Web3 Is "Bleeding Out" – How Can Practitioners Survive Better? In a candid reflection, the founder of IOSG Ventures voices deep concerns about the current state of Web3, describing an ecosystem experiencing severe "blood loss." Despite the recent MuShanghai event showcasing a successful pivot towards a more diverse, global community, a somber reality persists: many crypto-native attendees were there exploring exits or new labels in biotech, AI, and robotics. The core issue is identified as a breakdown in the ecosystem's positive feedback loop. Alarmingly, underestimated "low-probability bad events" are occurring simultaneously: a significant brain drain of Chinese developers to AI, a lack of breakout applications despite massive funding, and a widening credibility gap for practitioners globally, often stigmatized as scam artists. This has created a dire接班人 (successor) problem, with the next generation seeing little professional prestige or financial upside in crypto compared to fields like AI. A significant portion of the critique focuses on Ethereum and Vitalik Buterin. While not pessimistic about Ethereum's technology, the founder worries that critical development windows were missed by focusing on niche technical narratives like ZK and L2 instead of mass-market applications. A more urgent concern is that Vitalik may be isolated in an "information bubble," shielded from the grassroots community's hardships by layers of intermediaries, preventing crucial feedback from reaching him. The call is for Vitalik to return to a founder's mindset, re-engage directly with the community, and rally efforts for the next decade. The divergence between U.S. and Chinese OG (Original Gangster) ecosystems is stark. While many U.S. builders reinvest their wealth into the ecosystem, the Chinese scene suffers from a severe lack of "造血能力" (blood-making ability), with most market-driven funds struggling and many early success stories cashing out entirely. This threatens the entire Asian Web3 ecosystem's survival. For individual practitioners, survival advice is pragmatic: find your core "why," maintain life balance beyond token prices, continuously learn new skills (like AI), form small, trusted alliances for mutual support, and practice self-compassion. The industry's greatest need is not money or tech, but lighthouses—individuals at all levels who offer mentorship, grants, referrals, and honest reflection to guide others. The piece concludes with a direct appeal: OGs must pay forward the opportunities the industry gave them; founders must not struggle alone; and builders must continue their work, ensuring it remains a viable profession. The survival of Web3's "cathedral" depends not on any single leader but on the collective responsibility of everyone who remains.

marsbit1 ч. назад

IOSG Founder: Web3 Is 'Losing Blood,' How Can Practitioners Survive Better?

marsbit1 ч. назад

Deficits, Inflation, and the New Fed: The Deep Logic Behind US Bond Yields Breaking 5% and the Market Reset

In the week of May 15-19, 2026, U.S. long-term Treasury yields surged to multi-year highs, with the 30-year yield hitting 5.2%, a level unseen since 2007, and the 10-year yield climbing to 4.687%. Equity markets declined in response. Four primary factors are driving the rise in yields. First, stubborn inflation persists, with April wholesale prices rising 6% year-over-year, fueling expectations of potential future Fed rate hikes instead of cuts. Second, newly confirmed Fed Chair Kevin Warsh inherits a complex inflation battle, with markets closely awaiting his first FOMC meeting. Third, deteriorating U.S. fiscal health, marked by large deficits and rising debt servicing costs, is eroding the traditional "safe-haven" premium for Treasuries. Fourth, the "One Big Beautiful Bill" tax cuts are projected to add trillions to the national debt, contributing to Moody's recent credit rating downgrade. Rising yields pressure stocks through several channels: a higher discount rate reduces the present value of future earnings (especially for growth stocks); rising risk-free rates compress equity risk premiums, making bonds relatively more attractive; higher borrowing costs impact consumers and corporations; and a stronger dollar affects multinational earnings. For investors, the environment favors value and financial stocks over long-duration growth stocks. Bond investors find attractive yields in short to intermediate maturities, while income investors see the best fixed-income opportunities in over a decade. Key developments to watch include Chair Warsh's first FOMC meeting, upcoming inflation data, Treasury auction demand, and whether the 30-year yield approaches 6%, a level that could trigger a more sustained equity valuation reset. The bond market's message is clear: the era of cheap government borrowing is over, posing a central challenge for markets in late 2026.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Deficits, Inflation, and the New Fed: The Deep Logic Behind US Bond Yields Breaking 5% and the Market Reset

marsbit1 ч. назад

Is MicroStrategy Selling Bitcoin Not a Bearish Signal? Deconstructing the 5 Financial Logics Behind Corporate Bitcoin Divestment

The article "Is Strategy Selling Bitcoin Not a Bearish Signal? Decoding 5 Financial Logics Behind Corporate Bitcoin Divestment" analyzes why companies might sell their bitcoin holdings, arguing it's not necessarily negative. It begins by noting the market's surprise at Strategy's potential sale, contrasting its previous "never sell" stance. The core argument is that corporate decisions prioritize shareholder value, and selling bitcoin can be a rational strategic choice. The article outlines five key financial reasons for such sales: 1. **Increase Bitcoin Holdings Per Share:** Companies can use proceeds from bitcoin sales to repurchase shares when the stock price is undervalued relative to its bitcoin assets. This reduces the outstanding share count, potentially increasing the bitcoin amount backing each remaining share. 2. **Optimize Capital Structure & Reduce Financing Costs:** Building cash reserves through bitcoin sales can improve credit ratings (as favored by agencies like S&P), leading to lower future borrowing costs. Repaying debt with sale proceeds also reduces financial leverage. 3. **Legitimate Tax Planning:** In the absence of wash-sale rules for bitcoin in the US, companies can sell to realize capital losses, then repurchase, lowering the tax basis of their holdings and creating tax offsets. 4. **Counter Negative Market Narratives:** A controlled, non-disruptive sale could demonstrate market resilience and disprove fears that corporate selling would crash the market, thereby normalizing bitcoin as a corporate treasury asset. 5. **Repurchase Preferred Stock at a Discount:** If a company's preferred stock trades significantly below its face value, using bitcoin sale proceeds to repurchase it can retire expensive liabilities at a profit, saving on future dividend payments. The conclusion emphasizes that bitcoin's monetary properties offer flexibility. Strategic sales can protect corporate and shareholder interests, making asset utilization more important than rigid "hold" mandates.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Is MicroStrategy Selling Bitcoin Not a Bearish Signal? Deconstructing the 5 Financial Logics Behind Corporate Bitcoin Divestment

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Как купить PEOPLE

Добро пожаловать на HTX.com! Мы сделали приобретение ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) простым и удобным. Следуйте нашему пошаговому руководству и отправляйтесь в свое крипто-путешествие.Шаг 1: Создайте аккаунт на HTXИспользуйте свой адрес электронной почты или номер телефона, чтобы зарегистрироваться и бесплатно создать аккаунт на HTX. Пройдите удобную регистрацию и откройте для себя весь функционал.Создать аккаунтШаг 2: Перейдите в Купить криптовалюту и выберите свой способ оплатыКредитная/Дебетовая Карта: Используйте свою карту Visa или Mastercard для мгновенной покупки ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE).Баланс: Используйте средства с баланса вашего аккаунта HTX для простой торговли.Третьи Лица: Мы добавили популярные способы оплаты, такие как Google Pay и Apple Pay, для повышения удобства.P2P: Торгуйте напрямую с другими пользователями на HTX.Внебиржевая Торговля (OTC): Мы предлагаем индивидуальные услуги и конкурентоспособные обменные курсы для трейдеров.Шаг 3: Хранение ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE)После приобретения вами ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) храните их в своем аккаунте на HTX. В качестве альтернативы вы можете отправить их куда-либо с помощью перевода в блокчейне или использовать для торговли с другими криптовалютами.Шаг 4: Торговля ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE)С легкостью торгуйте ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) на спотовом рынке HTX. Просто зайдите в свой аккаунт, выберите торговую пару, совершайте сделки и следите за ними в режиме реального времени. Мы предлагаем удобный интерфейс как для начинающих, так и для опытных трейдеров.

747 просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2024.04.12Обновлено 2025.03.21

Как купить PEOPLE

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на PEOPLE (PEOPLE) представлены ниже.

活动图片