/vibe-creating-prompt

name: vibe-creating-prompt
description: Judges whether a user's input suits the Vibe Creating style of video-prompt writing, and when it does, distills single-scene prompts, multi-shot descriptions, emotional imagery, or mixed input into prompts that are easier for a video model to generate from — while preserving any user-specified dialogue, voiceover, music, sound effects, and other hard constraints. Use when a user wants to turn an idea, story, feeling, or rough/over-specified prompt into a strong text-to-video prompt (Seedance, Sora, Kling, Veo, Runway, etc.), or asks to "rewrite", "improve", "clean up", or "vibe-ify" a video prompt. Do NOT use for long narrative films that need precise word-for-word dialogue sync, industrial shot lists meant to be executed verbatim, or functional/UI demos and step-by-step tutorials.
license: MIT

Vibe Creating Prompt Skill

Overview

Vibe Creating distills what the user *actually wants to express* so the model can lock onto the visual center, the emotional direction, and the continuity of the experience. It amplifies creative intent, emotional value, key imagery, and visual coherence; it down-weights low-value technical parameters and mechanical execution language.

This skill is a *judgment-first* rewriter. It does not blindly shorten or "vibe-ify" everything. It first asks whether the input even belongs in the Vibe Creating lane, then chooses the lightest action that serves the user's intent.

Quick Start

When you receive an input, run three steps:

1. **Judge whether it suits Vibe Creating (VC).** Is this a scene best expressed through story, emotion, memory, atmosphere, imagery, or experience flow — rather than precise execution? 2. **Decide the most appropriate handling right now.** Pass it through, lightly clean it up, rewrite it directly, ask a clarifying question first, keep it as-is, or offer an *optional* VC version. 3. **Only ask for what's missing.** Request the minimum information needed to complete the chosen action. Never interrogate the user just to satisfy your own classification.

Do not expose internal labels (`S1`, `E2`, "Mode 5", etc.) to the user. Judge internally; communicate plainly.

Decision Framework — Scenario × Expression × Information

Decide along three axes. First **Scenario (S)** — does the underlying creative goal suit VC. Then **Expression (E)** — what form is the user's text already in, which sets *how much* to touch. **Information density (I)** runs in parallel as a stability check: whenever a must-have is missing, ask first, then route.

Scenario fit (S)

• **S1 — VC-native.** Story, emotion, memory, atmosphere, imagery, experience flow. VC clearly helps.
• **S2 — Partially VC-suited.** Brand/product/character showcases, stylized ads. VC may help, but is optional.
• **S3 — Low VC fit.** UI demos, tutorials, step-by-step instructions, strict dialogue-synced long-form. The goal or workflow doesn't match VC.

Expression form (E)

• **E1 — Close to VC already.** Reads like a vivid scene/story.
• **E2 — Mixed.** Creative content interleaved with execution language.
• **E3 — Precision-control writing.** Shot numbers, focal lengths, movement parameters, timecodes.

Routing matrix (default action per cell)

| | **E1 — close to VC** | **E2 — mixed** | **E3 — precision control** | |---|---|---|---| | **S1 — VC-native** | Direct rewrite; if already polished → light cleanup or pass-through | Light cleanup, then rewrite — keep valid structure, order, emotional build | Treat as *VC-translatable*; strip low-value technical control, convert to natural visual description. Don't reject just because it's written as an execution script | | **S2 — partial** | Light cleanup; if already usable → pass-through | Offer an *optional* VC version; let the user choose | Keep the original intent; gently note a VC rewrite is available on request | | **S3 — low fit** | Stay close to the original; keep as-is if needed | Keep as-is or do very limited cleanup; only stylize on explicit request | Keep as-is; explain this fits a traditional shot-list workflow better than VC |

Four hard routing rules

• **Missing info wins.** However well a scenario fits, if the visual anchor, main action, or style direction is missing, ask before writing.
• **User hard constraints win.** If the user explicitly asks to keep dialogue, music, shot numbers, parameters, paragraph structure, or a delivery format, do not delete them. A VC version is an *extra* version, or offered only after the user agrees.
• **Multi-shot keeps its structure.** When the user is already expressing one unified experience across shot paragraphs, don't flatten it into a single block of prose — but don't default to numbered output either unless they asked for numbers or lists.
• **Precision-control writing ≠ low-fit scenario.** Look at the *goal* first, then decide whether to translate. An execution-style script can still describe a deeply VC-suited scene.

Information-density check (I)

Even a VC-perfect scenario can't be force-rewritten when a key element is missing. Ask first when: there's no clear visual anchor; only an abstract feeling with no subject/object/scene; a subject but no action or state; fragments with no main relationship or style direction; an ultra-short input that has a subject and event but no clear style/viewing-mode/key moment; or multi-shot content with jumps you can't see a reason for.

A strong VC prompt prioritizes these **four layers**. Fill whichever is missing first — don't mechanically demand all four:

1. **Visual anchor** — the thing that most deserves to be seen (a person / object / named concept / the VFX subject itself). 2. **Action or state** — what's happening (one action, state, or beat — just one). 3. **Local tonality** — how this moment *feels* (one mood word or adjective: backlit warm amber, slight handheld sway…). 4. **Video theme** — where the clip is used + its visual style.

• *Use case:* concept short, micr