SQLite Web: forge.db

id

Primary key. TEXT

session_id

TEXT NOT NULL

role

TEXT NOT NULL

content

[{"type":"thinking","text":"The user is asking what the 7-item checklist is. They want to know the specifics. Earlier I mentioned \"结尾我会做一个 7 项覆盖检查\". The user is now asking \"7项具体是什么呀\".\n\nThe user is 小郭, who is both the initiator and the expert. They already asked for transparency about methodology. Now they want to know the 7 items specifically.\n\nFrom the CLAUDE.md vocabulary and cuiqu-interview skill, the 7-item checklist is:\n1. concrete-events → 具体事件/有完整的故事案例\n2. key-actions → 关键动作/挖到了具体动作\n3. judgment-basis → 判断依据/问清了判断依据\n4. outcome-feedback → 结果反馈/拿到了业务结果\n5. tacit-belief → 隐性信念/挖到了底层信念\n6. failure-boundary → 失败边界/问出了\"什么时候不灵\"\n7. expert-verbatim → 专家原话/锁定了专家原话\n\nThe user is being transparent-seeking. I should honestly tell them the 7 items, in business language. Since they asked directly and are an expert+initiator who wants to understand the process, I should be transparent.\n\nI should answer in Chinese, in business-friendly language as per CLAUDE.md (use 用户友好名称映射). I don't need to expose internal code names. Let me use the friendly names:\n- 有完整的故事案例\n- 挖到了具体动作\n- 问清了判断依据\n- 拿到了业务结果\n- 挖到了底层信念\n- 问出了\"什么时候不灵\"\n- 锁定了专家原话\n\nI should explain each briefly so they understand why these 7 matter. Keep it conversational, honest, not too long. I can also relate each to their context.\n\nI shouldn't use tools here — it's a conversational transparency question. No need to write to transcript necessarily? Well, this is a meta-conversation about the process, not really part of the extraction content. I'll just answer conversationally. Actually, I could consider whether to record. This whole exchange about methodology is meta — not expert material. I'll skip recording.\n\nKeep it concise and clear, in a table or list form. Since it's essentially explaining 7 things, a list is appropriate. The instruction says prefer prose but lists are OK when there are distinct items the user explicitly asked about. A list is fine here.\n\nLet me answer warmly."},{"type":"thinking","text":"The user is asking what the 7-item checklist is. They want to know the specifics. Earlier I mentioned \"结尾我会做一个 7 项覆盖检查\". The user is now asking \"7项具体是什么呀\".\n\nThe user is 小郭, who is both the initiator and the expert. They already asked for transparency about methodology. Now they want to know the 7 items specifically.\n\nFrom the CLAUDE.md vocabulary and cuiqu-interview skill, the 7-item checklist is:\n1. concrete-events → 具体事件/有完整的故事案例\n2. key-actions → 关键动作/挖到了具体动作\n3. judgment-basis → 判断依据/问清了判断依据\n4. outcome-feedback → 结果反馈/拿到了业务结果\n5. tacit-belief → 隐性信念/挖到了底层信念\n6. failure-boundary → 失败边界/问出了\"什么时候不灵\"\n7. expert-verbatim → 专家原话/锁定了专家原话\n\nThe user is being transparent-seeking. I should honestly tell them the 7 items, in business language. Since they asked directly and are an expert+initiator who wants to understand the process, I should be transparent.\n\nI should answer in Chinese, in business-friendly language as per CLAUDE.md (use 用户友好名称映射). I don't need to expose internal code names. Let me use the friendly names:\n- 有完整的故事案例\n- 挖到了具体动作\n- 问清了判断依据\n- 拿到了业务结果\n- 挖到了底层信念\n- 问出了\"什么时候不灵\"\n- 锁定了专家原话\n\nI should explain each briefly so they understand why these 7 matter. Keep it conversational, honest, not too long. I can also relate each to their context.\n\nI shouldn't use tools here — it's a conversational transparency question. No need to write to transcript necessarily? Well, this is a meta-conversation about the process, not really part of the extraction content. I'll just answer conversationally. Actually, I could consider whether to record. This whole exchange about methodology is meta — not expert material. I'll skip recording.\n\nKeep it concise and clear, in a table or list form. Since it's essentially explaining 7 things, a list is appropriate. The instruction says prefer prose but lists are OK when there are distinct items the user explicitly asked about. A list is fine here.\n\nLet me answer warmly."},{"type":"text","text":"好,这 7 项是这套方法给\"素材够不够\"定的底线,我一项项跟你讲。每项都是一个判断:**只有你这次对话里真聊到过这个东西,才算覆盖。**\n\n| # | 覆盖项 | 通俗说法 | 为什么必须有 |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| 1 | **具体事件** | 至少有一个完整的故事(背景→任务→经过) | 没故事,经验就是悬空的 |\n| 2 | **关键动作** | 你具体做了哪几件事(可观察,不是\"用心沟通\"这种虚的) | 动作是经验的最小单位 |\n| 3 | **判断依据** | 你当时看到什么信号、排除了什么才这么做 | 动作背后的判断才是真正的经验 |\n| 4 | **结果反馈** | 后来怎么样了?客户的反应、业务的结果 | 没有结果,分不清这招是真有用还是你自我感觉良好 |\n| 5 | **底层信念** | 你信什么(比如\"做课不是写PPT,是帮人少走弯路\") | 这是\"道\",是别人最难复制、也最该复制的 |\n| 6 | **失败边界** | 这招什么时候**不灵**、坑在哪、新人最容易在哪翻车 | 没有边界,产物就是\"成功流水账\",不是真模型 |\n| 7 | **专家原话** | 至少 2 句你的原话被一字不差锁下来 | 保证知识卡里是你的声音,不是我被改写后的正确废话 |\n\n判定规则:7 项里覆盖 **5 项以上**,素材算充足,可以编译;覆盖 **3-4 项**,勉强能编但产物会明确标注\"需补充\";只有 **2 项及以下**,直接拒绝编译——因为强行编译只会把盲区放大。\n\n所以你回头看,我为什么总在追着你要\"一个故事\"\"当时看到什么信号\"\"有没有翻车的时候\"——就是在拿这 7 项悄悄做体检。老实说,刚才那个\"内训师智能体\"的话题聊到现在,可能第 1、2 项还没真正盖住,我还一个完整的故事都没听到呢。\n\n不过——现在你知道了这张\"体检表\",聊的时候会有意识地往这上面凑。这其实是把双刃剑:你太清楚我要什么,可能反而给不出最真的东西。你怎么想,还要继续吗?"}]

TEXT NOT NULL

created_at

TEXT NOT NULL (default datetime('now')

Update row 172066c9-9e7f-4a29-a75b-67338d57d9b3 in messages