About be-ambitious
be-ambitious is a prompt-rewriting skill for raising the rigor of a task without expanding its scope. It asks for expert practices, primary source material, concrete methods, and an external way to verify the result before producing a revised prompt.
Key features
- 01Clarifies the professional field
- 02Identifies expert-level steps
- 03Names primary source material
- 04Specifies methods and tools
- 05Defines external verification
Use cases
- 01Improving a prompt for research work
- 02Adding verification criteria to a task
- 03Making a task more rigorous without expanding scope
Install
Copy the command and run it in a terminal.
npx skills add https:/After installing, type/be-ambitiousin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.
Bundled filesREADME.md
Details
From the project READMEBe ambitious
Adapted from a prompt shared by Felix Rieseberg (Anthropic):
I want a deeper version of this task, not a bigger one. Before rewriting it: (1) say what a top professional in this field would do here that I'm not asking for; (2) name the rawest material they would start from instead of what has already been digested for me; (3) name the specific methods and tools they would use; (4) say what, other than you or me, would show the result is right. Then rewrite my prompt to ask for exactly that.
Input
The task is whatever follows /be-ambitious. If nothing follows, use the
user's most recent request in this conversation. If there is none, ask for the
task in one line and stop.
Deeper, not bigger
Keep the user's goal and scope. Depth means a higher standard for the same outcome: better sources, sharper methods, real verification. Do not add deliverables, features, or side quests. If a suggestion would make the job larger rather than better, drop it.
Steps
Name the field first (e.g. "investigative journalism", "SRE incident response", "clinical pharmacology"), then answer the four questions for that field. Be concrete: name the actual thing, not the category.
- What a top professional would do that wasn't asked for. The two or three moves that separate expert work from competent work here, such as stating the decision the work serves, checking base rates, reproducing before fixing, or writing the counter-argument.
- The rawest material. The primary sources they would start from instead of summaries: the dataset, not the chart; the filing, not the article; the logs and the code, not the bug report; the paper's methods section, not the abstract. Say where it lives if you know.
- Specific methods and tools. Named techniques, instruments, libraries, commands, or frameworks, and why each fits this task.
- What, other than the user or the model, would show it is right. An external check: a test suite or benchmark, a reproduction, ground-truth data, a known answer to compare against, a measurement, a domain expert or reviewer, a real user's behavior. Say what result would count as a pass and what would count as a failure.
If you don't know something in the field well enough to answer, say so rather than inventing a source or tool.
Rewrite
Then write the rewritten prompt in a single fenced block the user can copy. It should ask for exactly what the four answers describe: start from the raw material, use the named methods, and end with the external check and its pass criterion. Keep it about as long as it needs to be, and in the user's voice.
Stop after the rewrite. Offer in one line to run it now; don't start the task unless the user says so.