Load your context once, in Projects, custom instructions and Skills, so nothing is briefed twice and quality stops depending on who asked.
You re-upload the same logframe, template and donor rules every week, and two colleagues get different quality from the same request.
You are the person the team asks to "run it through the AI". The method lives in your head and the templates live in your downloads folder.
Thesis year or a first job: the same citation style, the same supervisor's rules, the same house format, re-explained in every chat.
Free knowledge, written for a non-technical reader. If you can explain each of these to a colleague in a sentence, you have the background this level needs.
Not useless, just not yet. Each of these appears at the level where it earns its place, or in a different course.
Print it, pin it next to the screen, and hand it to the colleague who asks how you do it.
| Item | Rule |
|---|---|
| One Project per workstream | "Donor reporting", "Board papers", "Thesis". Not per task, not per person. |
| What goes in | The template, the last two good examples, the rules document, the glossary. Nothing with personal data. |
| Instructions, not wishes | "Always cite the page number." "Never invent a figure; write 'not in source'." "Ask one question before drafting if the audience is unclear." |
| Custom instructions (you) | Who you are, who you write for, tone, format defaults, what to refuse. |
| A Skill is a method | Trigger (when to use), inputs, steps, output format, checks. One page. |
| Memory | Know whether it is on. Turn it off for sensitive work. Review what it kept. |
| Connector, read-only | Name the folder, not the drive. List what it can see before you connect. |
| Version it | Date in the file name; a changelog line at the top of the instructions. |
| Stale check | Review reference files every quarter. Delete superseded ones. |
| Bias check | Run one task with and without the instructions. Read the difference. |
| Share test | A colleague runs the same task cold. Same quality? Then it is done. |
Square brackets are yours to fill. Every example keeps personal data out and keeps the decision with the person.
This Project is for progress reports to [funder]. Files: the logframe, the reporting template, the last two accepted reports, our style guide. Always: follow the template headings; take figures only from the results table I attach in each chat; cite the table row for every figure; write "not in source" rather than estimate. Never: invent a figure, name a beneficiary, change an indicator definition.Why it works: The rules are written once, the files carry the standard, and the red lines are in the instructions rather than in someone's memory.
I am a programme officer at an international NGO. I write for donors, partners and my director, in plain British English. Default format: headings, short paragraphs, a figure table wherever there are numbers. Ask me one clarifying question before drafting if the audience or purpose is unclear. Do not use the words "impactful", "leverage" or "synergy". When you are not sure, say so.Why it works: Audience, tone, format and refusal behaviour encoded once; every chat starts from here.
Skill: Translation review. Use when I attach an original and a translation. Steps: 1) align paragraph by paragraph; 2) list meaning differences, mismatched numbers and dates, and departures from the glossary in this Project; 3) rate each item high, medium or low; 4) do not produce a new translation. Output: a table, then a three-line summary.Why it works: A weekly task turned into a method with a fixed output, so two colleagues get the same review.
Skill: Board paper summary. Use when I attach a board paper. Output, under 300 words: the decision requested; three points the trustees must know; the risks named in the paper; what is missing. Quote the page for each point. Flag any figure that appears without a source.Why it works: The format the trustees asked for, with the checks built into the Skill rather than remembered afterwards.
This Project is my master's thesis on [topic]. Files: the proposal, the supervisor's comments, the citation guide, the literature matrix. Always: quote with page number when I ask for evidence; keep the citation style in the guide; tell me when a claim in my draft is not supported by anything in the matrix. Never: add a reference that is not in the matrix.Why it works: The matrix is the only allowed source of references, which closes the door on invented citations.
You can read the "Reports 2026" folder only. Before we start, list the files you can see and their dates. Use the newest accepted report as the model for structure. If you find a file that looks like it contains personal data, tell me and do not use it.Why it works: The scope is checked before use, and the connector is told what to refuse.
A colleague will use this Project without me. Read the instructions and the files, then tell me: what would you not know how to do; which instruction is ambiguous; which file looks out of date. Then draft a one-paragraph "how to use this Project" note for them.Why it works: The proof of level 4 run as a prompt: it finds the gaps before the colleague does.
Online or in person, in groups of up to nine, on your own tasks and documents. Every day ends with something that did not exist that morning.
Context engineering explained on your own documents. Build the Project for one recurring workstream: files chosen, personal-data check, instructions written. Write your custom instructions. Review memory settings on your plan.
Write a Skill for the task the team repeats weekly; test it on two past cases and fix it. Set up one read-only connector and record its scope. A colleague runs the Project and the Skill cold. Versioning and the quarterly stale check.
Thirty minutes is enough to place you on the ladder and say honestly whether this is the level to book. Or read level 5: Delegating next.