Skip to main content

Prompt Library

Purpose​

Provide reusable prompt patterns for CTI research, evidence review, and detection handoff.

Practitioner-Level Explanation​

Prompts should force structure. The best CTI prompts ask for claim tables, source verification, uncertainty, gaps, and downstream artifacts rather than narrative summaries. A prompt library should be treated like code: versioned, reviewed, and improved based on errors.

CTI Relevance​

Good prompts reduce rework and make AI outputs easier to validate.

Common Mistakes​

  • Letting the model invent sources or facts.
  • Using AI output without source verification.
  • Putting sensitive or restricted data into public tools.
  • Skipping human analytic judgment.

Practical Workflow​

  1. Choose the task type.
  2. Define source limits.
  3. Specify evidence labels and confidence terms.
  4. Request structured output.
  5. Ask for gaps and candidate rows.
  6. Review manually.

Example / Mini Case​

Research prompt: Extract only source-supported claims. For each claim provide URL, evidence label, confidence reason, defensive implication, and whether it should become a source-register, evidence-register, TTP, hunt, or detection row.

Analyst Checklist​

  • Are sources real and checked?
  • Are claims evidence-labeled?
  • Is sensitive data excluded?
  • Has a human reviewed the output?
  • Are hallucination controls applied?

Output Artifact​

Prompt ID:
Purpose:
Allowed Sources:
Output Schema:
Required Evidence:
Quality Gates:
Known Failure Modes:
Last Reviewed:

References​