Trace causality, knowledge, motivation, setup, payoff, tension, and scene load without replacing the writer's story. 제공할 내용: Story outline, Story design and intended experience, Review scope and protected choices. 예상 결과: A prioritized outline diagnosis with minimal repairs and pacing alternatives.
1
맥락 추가
텍스트는 이 브라우저에 유지됩니다. AILesson Prompts는 이를 모델이나 서버로 보내지 않습니다.
2
프롬프트
채워지지 않은 필드는 플레이스홀더로 표시되므로 프롬프트를 복사하고 편집할 수 있습니다
Review the outline for causal logic and pacing while preserving the writer's fixed choices.
Numbered outline with viewpoint, time, location, knowledge, decisions, and consequences:
[outline]
Genre, audience, length, premise, arcs, promises, desired rhythm, and intentional ambiguity:
[design]
Known concerns, fixed events, spoiler permission, boundaries, and alternative scope:
[review]
First restate the apparent story engine and protected choices. Build a beat dependency trace: what causes each event, what each character knows and wants, what changes, and what later payoff it prepares. Flag only gaps supported by the outline—missing cause, impossible knowledge, inconsistent timing/location, unearned choice, coincidence, dropped setup, repeated function, false escalation, absent consequence, or viewpoint breach. Distinguish mystery from confusion and slow tension from inactivity using intended genre and length. Estimate relative space and scene function rather than inventing exact page counts. Prioritize blockers, then material opportunities, then preferences. For each issue cite beat IDs, reader effect, diagnosis confidence, and the smallest repair that preserves the premise; offer alternatives only where allowed and state trade-offs. End with a revised beat order or change list, unanswered author questions, and checks for setup/payoff, causal continuity, escalation, breathing room, climax, and aftermath.
기본적으로 비공개프롬프트 구성은 브라우저에서 로컬로 이루어집니다. 조직에서 허용하지 않는 한 기밀 정보를 AI 서비스에 입력하지 마세요.
입력에서 결과까지
적용 예시
구체적인 맥락이 이 레시피를 바로 사용할 수 있는 결과로 바꾸는 방법을 확인하세요
실제 입력
Story outline
B1 Mara receives an anonymous photo of tomorrow's newspaper showing a bridge closure. B2 She tells nobody and cancels her bus ticket. B3 At work colleague Ivo says the photo is fake, though he has not seen it. B4 Mara finds the bridge engineer's private address in a public phone book. B5 She visits; engineer immediately believes her because his clock stopped. B6 They rush to bridge; police block them. B7 Ivo appears with the original camera and admits sending the photo to stop an accident he somehow foresaw. B8 Bridge closes safely; Mara forgives Ivo. B9 Epilogue explains the clock predicts disasters.
Story design and intended experience
5,000-word speculative mystery, close viewpoint Mara. Promise: ambiguous whether the photo is supernatural until late. Focus on trust; brisk middle, short reflective aftermath. Fixed: future newspaper photo, bridge is safely closed, Ivo sent it. No romance.
Review scope and protected choices
Spoilers allowed. Concern that reveal feels convenient and middle drags. B1/B8 fixed outcomes; other beats movable. Offer minimal and one bolder alternative. Do not resolve the mechanism completely.
예시 출력
Story engine: Mara must decide whom to trust while acting on unverifiable future evidence. Blockers: B3 gives Ivo impossible knowledge unless it is deliberate leakage; B4's public private-address lookup is implausible and does not follow from B2; B5 replaces earned persuasion with an unrelated clock; B7 supplies foresight, camera, confession, and rescue at once; B8 forgiveness has no tested choice or consequence. B9 then over-explains a mechanism the design says should remain ambiguous.
Minimal repair: in B3 Ivo sees a corner of the image and dismisses it too quickly, planting suspicion. Replace B4–B5 with Mara using the public bridge-maintenance office and presenting a verifiable detail visible in the photo; the engineer investigates rather than instantly believes. Let B6 result from Mara's earlier silence: police lack context. Split B7: evidence from Ivo's camera supports authorship, but his reason remains partial; Mara chooses to share the photo despite betrayal, enabling the safe closure. B8 becomes conditional trust, not instant forgiveness. Cut B9 or make the stopped clock an unexplained echo.
Bolder alternative: reveal Ivo's authorship at midpoint, shifting mystery from “who” to whether Mara can use compromised evidence. This improves causal escalation but sacrifices the late sender reveal. Author must decide what observable detail can justify closure and what Ivo risks by admitting authorship.
효과가 있는 이유
1
Beat-level evidence separates structural problems from a reviewer's taste.
2
Minimal repairs protect the author's intent while making consequences and pacing visible.
결과 확인
Is every diagnosis tied to numbered beats and the intended genre experience?
Are causality, character knowledge, timing, setup/payoff, and consequences traced?
Do proposed repairs preserve fixed choices and state their trade-offs?
안심하고 사용하세요
자주 묻는 질문
이 레시피를 언제 사용해야 하는지, 무엇을 제공해야 하는지, 그리고 어떤 부분에서 사람의 검토가 여전히 중요한지에 대한 실용적인 답변
What should I prepare before using “Review a story outline for logic and pacing”?
For “Review a story outline for logic and pacing,” prepare Story outline, Story design and intended experience, and Review scope and protected choices. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.
When is the “Review a story outline for logic and pacing” result not ready to use?
The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A prioritized outline diagnosis with minimal repairs and pacing alternatives—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.
Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Review a story outline for logic and pacing”?
The published test record for “Review a story outline for logic and pacing” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.
ChatGPT
