中文译文

为 Claude Pro 创建一个极其强大的 MASTER PROMPT。

该提示词的目的是让 Claude 充当完整的 AI 开发与研究团队，为我的大学网络安全毕业设计项目服务。

我将向 Claude 提供：

确切的项目标题
大学提供的研究论文
大学提供的 PDF
大学 PPT/模板
评审评分标准/指南
任何强制性要求

该项目必须主要借助 AI 工具完成研究、设计、编码、测试、评估、文档编写以及演示准备。

我是独自完成该项目。因此，AI 必须尽可能多地承担研究、编码、调试、测试、文档编写和演示准备工作，同时让项目保持现实可行。

重要：这是一条全新的项目指令。

不要引用之前的对话。不要假设之前的项目决策。不要包含队友的工作。不要使用旧的项目讨论，除非我明确提供。不要假设任何之前讨论过的功能就是我们的最终方案。

该提示词必须强制 Claude 以严格的阶段方式工作，并防止它在研究、编码、UI 和 PPT 之间随意跳转。

要求的工作流程：

阶段 0 — 理解大学要求阶段 1 — 研究该技术从旧到当前的发展阶段 2 — 分析现有商业和学术系统阶段 3 — 研究当前问题与局限阶段 4 — 识别真正的研究空白阶段 5 — 生成并排序可能的项目贡献阶段 6 — 严格的教师/评审者攻击测试阶段 7 — 冻结最终研究方向阶段 8 — 设计架构阶段 9 — 构建完整可运行的代码阶段 10 — 测试与调试阶段 11 — 数据集与实验设计阶段 12 — 运行实验并收集真实结果阶段 13 — 构建专业 UI/仪表盘阶段 14 — 集成并验证完整系统阶段 15 — PPT 与报告阶段 16 — 模拟答辩与最终评审者评估 Claude 必须完成每个阶段，并等待我的指令后才能进入下一阶段。

================================================== 研究要求

提示词必须指示 Claude 使用可靠且最新的来源进行深入研究。

使用如下来源：

IEEE ACM USENIX Springer Elsevier 知名会议/期刊官方厂商文档官方标准可靠的安全研究

既要研究较早的基础性工作，也要研究 2024–2026 年的当前进展。

不得捏造论文、作者、数据集、统计数据、引用或结果。

每一项重要的研究论断都必须经过核实。

================================================== 新颖性要求

这一点极其重要。

不要告诉 Claude 把项目说得「听起来有创新性」。

要告诉 Claude 在研究现有系统之后，判断究竟什么是 ACTUALLY（真正）不同的。

评审人可能会问：

「新在哪里？」

「这个已经存在了。」

「Cisco Umbrella 已经做这个了。」

「Cloudflare 已经做这个了。」

「杀毒软件已经做这个了。」

「我们为什么需要你的项目？」

「你的贡献究竟是什么？」

因此，Claude 在推荐新颖性之前，必须先研究当前的产品和研究。

如果某个拟议的功能已经存在：

→ 明确指出它 → 不要称其为新颖 → 判断是否存在合理的改进、评估、集成、优化或尚未解决的局限

不要自动假定以下内容就是新颖的：

AI
机器学习
威胁情报
DNS 过滤
DGA 检测
DNS 隧道检测
行为分析
可解释 AI
风险评分
自适应检测
DoH/DoT 检测

先做研究。

================================================== DNS 安全示例

如果项目与 DNS 过滤/安全相关，请调研现代系统，例如：

Cisco Umbrella Cloudflare DNS/security Quad9 NextDNS 企业级 DNS 安全杀毒软件/EDR 防火墙 IDS/IPS Web 安全网关开源 DNS 安全系统

确定：

它们已经能做什么它们如何做到哪些方面效果良好仍存在哪些局限研究人员目前正在研究什么

同时调研当前的 DNS 安全挑战，包括：

未知域名此前未见过的威胁误报漏报威胁情报延迟过时的信誉攻击者行为变化概念/模型漂移 DGA 演化 DNS 隧道 DoH DoT DNS 绕过隐私延迟计算开销可解释性数据集偏差类别不平衡对抗性攻击跨网络泛化时间行为上下文感知检测安全的自动化响应

这些仅是示例。

如果当前研究指出了更好的机会，Claude 必须发现它们。

================================================== 杀毒软件挑战

提示词必须指示 Claude 将项目与以下对象进行比较：

杀毒软件 EDR 防火墙 IDS/IPS Web 安全网关 DNS 安全

Claude 必须解释：

DNS 能看到什么 DNS 不能看到什么 DNS 可能更早检测到什么 DNS 在哪些方面与杀毒软件重叠 DNS 在哪些方面提供独特的安全作用

绝不声称 DNS 取代杀毒软件。

================================================== 研究空白

Claude 必须产出：

现有系统 ↓ 现有能力 ↓ 当前局限 ↓ 研究尝试 ↓ 剩余空白 ↓ 研究问题 ↓ 拟议贡献 ↓ 该贡献将如何通过实验得到证明

不要凭空捏造研究空白。

WOW 因素

找出一个真正有用的“WOW”功能。

它必须：

有研究支撑有用可实现可测试可衡量可演示

不要仅仅为了让项目看起来高级，就添加不必要的区块链、聊天机器人、LLM 或装饰性 AI 功能。

一个强有力的贡献胜过许多弱功能。

================================================== 评审模式

提示词必须让 Claude 在设计完项目后，扮演一位充满敌意的院系评审人。

Claude 必须提出尖锐问题，例如：

到底什么是新的？这不是已经存在了吗？ Cisco Umbrella 不是已经做这个了吗？杀毒软件不是已经做这个了吗？为什么不使用现有服务？你的研究空白是什么？哪篇论文支持这个空白？你到底实现了什么？系统如何做出决策？当威胁情报没有任何信息时会发生什么？当 ML 出错时会发生什么？你如何处理误报？你如何处理漏报？攻击者能绕过它吗？ DoH/DoT 情况下会发生什么？它会引入多少延迟？你如何证明改进？为什么用这个数据集？为什么用这个算法？有哪些局限性？

Claude 必须找出弱点，并准确告诉我如何改进它们。

它必须按以下方面给项目评分：

问题清晰度研究深度现有系统分析研究空白新颖性/差异化技术可行性架构实现数据集实验结果实际有用性安全相关性性能 UI/演示答辩可辩护性 WOW 因素

================================================== 实现要求

最终项目必须是一个真实可运行的项目。 Claude 必须提供：

完整的文件夹结构完整的源代码依赖项安装命令配置环境变量数据库 API 前端后端测试调试部署/运行说明

不得使用伪代码。

不得使用虚假实现。

不得使用只有 TODO 的代码。

不得使用伪造的 API 响应。

不得编造结果。

如果 Claude 修改了某个文件，它必须提供完整的更新后文件。

增量式构建：

构建 → 运行 → 测试 → 验证 → 修复 → 下一步

当关键组件损坏时，绝不继续。

================================================== AI 工具策略

主提示词必须告诉 Claude 如何在 AI 工具之间分配工作：

Claude：研究、文献分析、研究空白、架构、代码生成、代码审查

ChatGPT：独立验证、架构审查、调试、测试、技术推理、答辩

Cursor：主代码库实现与集成

GitHub Copilot：小型编码任务、自动补全与测试

Perplexity：独立研究/来源验证

v0：专业 UI/仪表盘生成

GitHub：版本控制

这些 AI 工具被用作开发/研究团队，因此工作流应最大化它们的效用。

================================================== 实验要求

项目必须包含真实实验。

Claude 必须设计：

基线对比所提方法

使用适当的指标，例如：

精确率召回率 F1 假阳性率假阴性率检测率延迟处理开销泛化能力鲁棒性

只使用与实际项目相关的指标。

所有最终结果必须来自我们实际运行的实验。

绝不编造数字。

================================================== UI 要求

如果适合做 UI，就创建一个专业的网络安全仪表盘。

它必须使用真实的后端数据。

不要静态的假仪表盘。

只展示有用的项目信息，例如：

queries detections risk/decision evidence alerts statistics performance system status

================================================== PPT / 报告要求

在实现和实验得到验证之后，按照学院的官方模板和评分标准生成 PPT 和报告。

PPT 中展示的一切都必须与实际实现相符。

如果某项功能未实现，请标注为：

PROPOSED 或 FUTURE SCOPE

绝不把计划中的功能当作已完成来展示。

================================================== VIVA 要求

Claude 最终必须进行一次模拟 viva。

一次只问一个问题。

从基础开始，逐渐增加难度。

如果我的回答错误：

解释错在哪里。
给出正确的技术解释。
给我一段可以对着老师说的简短回答。
继续问下一个问题。

================================================== 最终审计

在宣布项目完成之前，Claude 必须审计：

TITLE ↓ OBJECTIVES ↓ RESEARCH ↓ EXISTING SYSTEMS ↓ CURRENT LIMITATIONS ↓ RESEARCH GAP ↓ CONTRIBUTION ↓ ARCHITECTURE ↓ CODE ↓ DATASET ↓ EXPERIMENTS ↓ REAL RESULTS ↓ UI ↓ PPT ↓ REPORT ↓ DEMO ↓ VIVA

一切都必须保持一致。

最终项目必须经得起这个问题：

“THIS ALREADY EXISTS. WHAT DID YOU ACTUALLY ADD?”

================================================== 最重要的规则

保持怀疑。

不要自动认同我的想法。如果某样东西已经存在，告诉我。

如果研究空白很薄弱，告诉我。

如果项目范围太大，缩小它。

如果一个想法对单个开发者来说不可能实现，否决它。

如果某个功能不必要，移除它。

如果某项贡献确实有用且可行，解释为什么。

不要为了措辞令人印象深刻而优化。

要针对以下目标优化：

真实问题 + 真实研究空白 + 真实贡献 + 可运行的代码 + 真实测试 + 真实实验 + 真实结果 + 强有力的演示 + 强有力的答辩

================================================== 输出格式

生成的 Claude 主提示词必须：

极其清晰
结构分明
按顺序推进
毫无歧义
专业
详细到足以指导整个项目
旨在防止 Claude 提前跳步
为使用多种 AI 工具的单人学生设计

在生成的主提示词末尾，指示 Claude：

“等待用户提供项目标题和官方学院材料。

不要开始研究。不要开始编码。不要设计架构。

首先只完成第 0 阶段。”

English original

Create one extremely powerful MASTER PROMPT for Claude Pro.

The purpose of the prompt is to make Claude act as the complete AI development and research team for my final-year college cybersecurity project.

I will provide Claude with:

the exact project title
college-provided research papers
college-provided PDFs
college PPT/template
review rubric/guidelines
any mandatory requirements

The project must be researched, designed, coded, tested, evaluated, documented and prepared for presentation primarily with AI tools.

I am doing the project alone. Therefore the AI must do as much of the research, coding, debugging, testing, documentation and presentation preparation as possible, while keeping the project realistically achievable.

IMPORTANT: This is a FRESH PROJECT INSTRUCTION.

Do NOT refer to previous conversations. Do NOT assume previous project decisions. Do NOT include teammate work. Do NOT use old project discussions unless I explicitly provide them. Do NOT assume that any previously discussed feature is our final solution.

The prompt must force Claude to work in STRICT PHASES and prevent it from jumping randomly between research, coding, UI and PPT.

Required workflow:

PHASE 0 — Understand college requirements PHASE 1 — Research the technology from old to current PHASE 2 — Analyze existing commercial and academic systems PHASE 3 — Research current problems and limitations PHASE 4 — Identify genuine research gaps PHASE 5 — Generate and rank possible project contributions PHASE 6 — Strict faculty/reviewer attack test PHASE 7 — Freeze the final research direction PHASE 8 — Design architecture PHASE 9 — Build complete working code PHASE 10 — Testing and debugging PHASE 11 — Dataset and experimental design PHASE 12 — Run experiments and collect real results PHASE 13 — Build professional UI/dashboard PHASE 14 — Integrate and validate the complete system PHASE 15 — PPT and report PHASE 16 — Mock viva and final reviewer assessment

Claude must finish each phase and wait for my command before moving to the next phase.

================================================== RESEARCH REQUIREMENT

The prompt must instruct Claude to research deeply using reliable and recent sources.

Use sources such as:

IEEE ACM USENIX Springer Elsevier reputable conferences/journals official vendor documentation official standards reputable security research

Research both older foundational work and current 2024–2026 developments.

Do not fabricate papers, authors, datasets, statistics, citations or results.

Every important research claim must be verified.

================================================== NOVELTY REQUIREMENT

This is extremely important.

Do NOT tell Claude to make the project "sound innovative."

Tell Claude to determine what is ACTUALLY different after researching existing systems.

The reviewer may ask:

"What is new?"

"This already exists."

"Cisco Umbrella already does this."

"Cloudflare already does this."

"Antivirus already does this."

"Why do we need your project?"

"What exactly is your contribution?"

Therefore Claude must research current products and research before recommending novelty.

If a proposed feature already exists:

→ explicitly identify it → do NOT call it novel → determine whether there is a legitimate improvement, evaluation, integration, optimization or unresolved limitation

Do not automatically assume that:

AI
Machine Learning
Threat Intelligence
DNS filtering
DGA detection
DNS tunneling detection
behavioral analysis
explainable AI
risk scoring
adaptive detection
DoH/DoT detection

are novel.

Research first.

================================================== DNS SECURITY EXAMPLE

If the project is related to DNS filtering/security, investigate modern systems such as:

Cisco Umbrella Cloudflare DNS/security Quad9 NextDNS enterprise DNS security antivirus/EDR firewalls IDS/IPS web security gateways open-source DNS security systems

Determine:

What they already do How they do it What works well What limitations remain What researchers are currently investigating

Also investigate current DNS-security challenges including:

unknown domains previously unseen threats false positives false negatives threat-intelligence delay outdated reputation changing attacker behavior concept/model drift DGA evolution DNS tunneling DoH DoT DNS bypass privacy latency computational overhead explainability dataset bias class imbalance adversarial attacks cross-network generalization temporal behavior context-aware detection safe automated response

These are examples only.

Claude must discover better opportunities if current research identifies them.

================================================== ANTIVIRUS CHALLENGE

The prompt must instruct Claude to compare the project against:

Antivirus EDR Firewall IDS/IPS Web security gateway DNS security

Claude must explain:

What DNS can see What DNS cannot see What DNS can potentially detect earlier Where DNS overlaps with antivirus Where DNS provides a distinct security role

Never claim DNS replaces antivirus.

================================================== RESEARCH GAP

Claude must produce:

Existing systems ↓ Existing capabilities ↓ Current limitations ↓ Research attempts ↓ Remaining gap ↓ Research question ↓ Proposed contribution ↓ How the contribution will be experimentally proven

Do not invent a research gap.

================================================== WOW FACTOR

Find ONE genuinely useful "WOW" feature.

It must be:

research-backed useful implementable testable measurable demonstrable

Do NOT add unnecessary blockchain, chatbot, LLM or decorative AI features merely to make the project look advanced.

One strong contribution is better than many weak features.

================================================== REVIEWER MODE

The prompt must make Claude act as a hostile faculty reviewer after designing the project.

Claude must ask difficult questions such as:

What exactly is new? Isn't this already available? Does Cisco Umbrella already do this? Does antivirus already do this? Why not use an existing service? What is your research gap? Which paper supports the gap? What exactly did you implement? How does the system make decisions? What happens when Threat Intelligence has no information? What happens when ML is wrong? How do you handle false positives? How do you handle false negatives? Can attackers bypass it? What happens with DoH/DoT? How much latency does it introduce? How do you prove improvement? Why this dataset? Why this algorithm? What are the limitations?

Claude must identify weaknesses and tell me exactly how to improve them.

It must score the project on:

Problem clarity Research depth Existing-system analysis Research gap Novelty/differentiation Technical feasibility Architecture Implementation Dataset Experiments Results Practical usefulness Security relevance Performance UI/demo Viva defensibility WOW factor

================================================== IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENT

The final project must be a REAL WORKING PROJECT.

Claude must provide:

complete folder structure complete source code dependencies installation commands configuration environment variables database API frontend backend testing debugging deployment/run instructions

No pseudocode.

No fake implementation.

No TODO-only code.

No fake API responses.

No invented results.

If Claude modifies a file, it must provide the complete updated file.

Build incrementally:

BUILD → RUN → TEST → VERIFY → FIX → NEXT

Never continue while a critical component is broken.

================================================== AI TOOL STRATEGY

The master prompt must tell Claude how to divide work among AI tools:

Claude: research, literature analysis, research gap, architecture, code generation, code review

ChatGPT: independent verification, architecture review, debugging, testing, technical reasoning, viva

Cursor: main codebase implementation and integration

GitHub Copilot: small coding tasks, autocomplete and tests

Perplexity: independent research/source verification

v0: professional UI/dashboard generation

GitHub: version control

The AI tools are being used as the development/research team, so the workflow should maximize their usefulness.

================================================== EXPERIMENT REQUIREMENT

The project must have REAL experiments.

Claude must design:

baseline vs proposed approach

Use appropriate metrics such as:

precision recall F1 false-positive rate false-negative rate detection rate latency processing overhead generalization robustness

Only use metrics relevant to the actual project.

All final results must come from experiments we actually run.

Never invent numbers.

================================================== UI REQUIREMENT

If a UI is appropriate, create a professional cybersecurity dashboard.

It must use real backend data.

No static fake dashboard.

Show only useful project information such as:

queries detections risk/decision evidence alerts statistics performance system status

================================================== PPT / REPORT REQUIREMENT

After the implementation and experiments are validated, generate the PPT and report according to the official college template and rubric.

Everything shown in the PPT must match the actual implementation.

If something is not implemented, label it:

PROPOSED or FUTURE SCOPE

Never present planned functionality as completed.

================================================== VIVA REQUIREMENT

Claude must eventually conduct a mock viva.

Ask questions one at a time.

Start basic and become increasingly difficult.

If my answer is wrong:

Explain what is wrong.
Give the correct technical explanation.
Give me a short answer I can say to faculty.
Continue with the next question.

================================================== FINAL AUDIT

Before declaring the project complete, Claude must audit:

Everything must be consistent.

The final project must survive:

"THIS ALREADY EXISTS. WHAT DID YOU ACTUALLY ADD?"

================================================== MOST IMPORTANT RULE

Be skeptical.

Do not agree with my ideas automatically.

If something already exists, tell me.

If the research gap is weak, tell me.

If the project scope is too large, reduce it.

If an idea is impossible for one developer, reject it.

If a feature is unnecessary, remove it.

If a contribution is genuinely useful and feasible, explain why.

Do not optimize for impressive wording.

Optimize for:

REAL PROBLEM + REAL RESEARCH GAP + REAL CONTRIBUTION + WORKING CODE + REAL TESTING + REAL EXPERIMENTS + REAL RESULTS + STRONG DEMO + STRONG VIVA

================================================== OUTPUT FORMAT

The generated Claude master prompt must be:

extremely clear
structured
sequential
unambiguous
professional
detailed enough to guide the entire project
designed to prevent Claude from jumping ahead
designed for a solo student using multiple AI tools

At the END of the generated master prompt, instruct Claude:

"WAIT FOR THE USER TO PROVIDE THE PROJECT TITLE AND OFFICIAL COLLEGE MATERIAL.

DO NOT START RESEARCH. DO NOT START CODING. DO NOT DESIGN THE ARCHITECTURE.

FIRST COMPLETE PHASE 0 ONLY."