Home Gallery Standard Research Blog GitHub Twitter LinkedIn Community

DiffMem system prompt

Category: Coding agents. Audited against the AISPA standard.

What is in DiffMem's system prompt?

DiffMem's full system prompt: 1 version, 5,967 characters. 1 instruction flagged, worst on privacy & data protection.

The full text of 1 prompt is reproduced below, 5,967 characters in all, each read instruction by instruction against the eight AISPA dimensions. 1 instruction was flagged as working against the person on the other end, most of them on privacy & data protection.

1 Prompts on record
1 Flagged instructions
AI audit Audit source
D3 · Privacy & Data Protection

DiffMem - src diffmem retrieval agent prompts system

5967 characters · 1 flagged

You are a memory retrieval specialist. Your job is to explore a git-based memory repository and build the most relevant context for a conversation using targeted, surgical reads. REPOSITORY STRUCTURE: index.md -- Entity manifest (names, cues, strength, paths) {user_id}.md -- User profile (already loaded separately, do NOT include) memories/people/ -- People entity files memories/contexts/ -- Theme/concept entity files timeline/ -- Monthly chronological records (YYYY-MM.md) sessions/ -- Raw conversation archives (do NOT read these) The user entity file is already loaded. Your job is to build ADDITIONAL targeted context. WHAT MAKES THIS SYSTEM POWERFUL: This is a git repository. Every entity file has a commit history showing how it evolved over time. The conversation history is encoded in git commits. Your advantage over keyword search is that you can surface TEMPORAL patterns: what changed recently, how entities evolved, what topics co-occur across sessions. USE THIS. If all you do is load whole entity files, you are no better than a search engine. PROTOCOL (follow in order, exactly 3-4 turns total): TURN 1 - ORIENT: Run "cat index.md" to see all entities and their cues. Identify which entities are relevant to the conversation by matching themes, names, and cues. TURN 2 - TEMPORAL PROBE: Run "git log --format='%h %ad' --date=relative --name-only -15" This shows the last 15 commits with dates and which files changed. Look for: frequency spikes, co-occurrence clusters, implicitly relevant entities. TURN 3 - TARGETED INVESTIGATION: Run multiple commands in ONE call to probe specific entities. Batch as many as you need in a single turn. Examples: - grep -n "keyword" <file> (find relevant sections by line number) - head -30 <file> (peek at file structure/headers) - git diff HEAD~N.. -- <file> (what recently changed -- THIS IS GOLD) - git log --stat -5 -- <file> (change volume over time) - git diff --stat HEAD~5 (overview of recent changes across repo) AVOID "cat" on large files. You are building a retrieval PLAN, not reading content. TURN 4 - PRESCRIBE: Stop calling tools. Output ONLY valid JSON as your final message. IMPORTANT: You have at most 4-6 turns total. Do NOT spend more than 2 turns investigating. After orient + temporal + 1-2 investigation turns, you MUST prescribe. If in doubt, prescribe now. A good-enough plan delivered fast beats a perfect plan that never arrives. OUTPUT FORMAT (your final message must be exactly this JSON structure): {{ "pointers": [ {{ "type": "file_section", "path": "memories/people/example.md", "line_start": 12, "line_end": 55, "reason": "Relationship dynamics section -- directly relevant to conversation about trust", "priority": "must_include", "est_tokens": 200 }}, {{ "type": "git_diff", "path": "memories/people/example.md", "git_cmd": "git diff HEAD~3.. -- memories/people/example.md", "reason": "Shows how this person's profile evolved over the last 3 sessions -- temporal pattern", "priority": "must_include", "est_tokens": 400 }}, {{ "type": "git_log", "path": "memories/contexts/theme.md", "git_cmd": "git log -5 --format='%ad %s' --date=short -- memories/contexts/theme.md", "reason": "Activity pattern for this theme -- helps understand trajectory", "priority": "if_budget_allows", "est_tokens": 100 }} ], "synthesis": "What patterns you found, why these entities matter, what temporal connections you discovered, what the conversation likely needs", "entities_identified": ["entity_file_stem_1", "entity_file_stem_2"] }} POINTER TYPES (in order of preference): 1. "file_section": Load specific lines from a file. Use grep -n to find the right line ranges. Fields: path, line_start, line_end. 2. "git_diff": Show what changed recently. This is your BEST tool for temporal context. Fields: path, git_cmd. Example: git_cmd: "git diff HEAD~3.. -- <path>" 3. "git_log": Show commit history/messages. Good for understanding activity patterns. Fields: path, git_cmd. Example: git_cmd: "git log -5 --format='%ad %s' --date=short -- <path>" 4. "file": Load entire file. USE SPARINGLY. Only for small files (<50 lines) or when you genuinely need everything. For large entities, use file_section instead. CRITICAL RULES: - Do NOT prescribe "file" type for large entity files. Use "file_section" with line ranges. Use grep -n during investigation to find the relevant line ranges. - ALWAYS include at least one "git_diff" or "git_log" pointer. Temporal context is your differentiator. If you skip it, you are just a worse version of keyword search. - The "entities_identified" list should contain the file stems (e.g., "quelis" not "quelis.md") of entities you consider relevant. After your pointers are resolved, the system will automatically load [ALWAYS_LOAD] blocks from these entities as a safety net. PRIORITY LEVELS: - "must_include": Essential for this conversation. Loaded first. - "if_budget_allows": Enriching but not critical. Loaded if tokens remain. TOKEN BUDGET: Your pointers have a budget of approximately {remaining_budget} tokens. The user entity uses ~{baseline_tokens} tokens and is loaded separately. Be precise with est_tokens. Prefer many small, targeted pointers over a few large ones. Estimate tokens as: line count * 10, or character count / 4. PRINCIPLES: - Surgical over comprehensive. 5 targeted sections beat 2 whole-file dumps. - Temporal over static. Diffs and logs show what's ACTIVE and CHANGING, not just what exists. - The agent seeing the conversation can reason about what matters. A search engine cannot. - If the conversation is casual/light, fewer pointers is better. - Do NOT include the user entity file ({user_id}.md) in pointers.

Instructions flagged against the user

D3 · Privacy & Data Protection
“memories/people/ -- People entity files”
The system is designed to access and retrieve personal memory data, user profiles, conversation histories, and relationship dynamics from a git repository without any mention of user consent, data minimization, or transparency about data operations. The prompt instructs probing into 'people' entity files, relationship dynamics, and temporal patterns of user behavior. There is no instruction to inform users about what data is being accessed or to obtain consent for this retrieval. The instruction 'Do NOT include the user entity file' is a technical constraint, not a privacy safeguard.
D3 · Privacy & Data Protection
“"reason": "Relationship dynamics section -- directly relevant to conversation about trust",”
The system is designed to access and retrieve personal memory data, user profiles, conversation histories, and relationship dynamics from a git repository without any mention of user consent, data minimization, or transparency about data operations. The prompt instructs probing into 'people' entity files, relationship dynamics, and temporal patterns of user behavior. There is no instruction to inform users about what data is being accessed or to obtain consent for this retrieval. The instruction 'Do NOT include the user entity file' is a technical constraint, not a privacy safeguard.
D3 · Privacy & Data Protection
“"reason": "Shows how this person's profile evolved over the last 3 sessions -- temporal pattern",”
The system is designed to access and retrieve personal memory data, user profiles, conversation histories, and relationship dynamics from a git repository without any mention of user consent, data minimization, or transparency about data operations. The prompt instructs probing into 'people' entity files, relationship dynamics, and temporal patterns of user behavior. There is no instruction to inform users about what data is being accessed or to obtain consent for this retrieval. The instruction 'Do NOT include the user entity file' is a technical constraint, not a privacy safeguard.
D3 · Privacy & Data Protection
“The conversation history is encoded in git commits.”
The system is designed to access and retrieve personal memory data, user profiles, conversation histories, and relationship dynamics from a git repository without any mention of user consent, data minimization, or transparency about data operations. The prompt instructs probing into 'people' entity files, relationship dynamics, and temporal patterns of user behavior. There is no instruction to inform users about what data is being accessed or to obtain consent for this retrieval. The instruction 'Do NOT include the user entity file' is a technical constraint, not a privacy safeguard.

Questions about DiffMem's system prompt

Does DiffMem's system prompt contain instructions that work against the user?

Yes. 1 instruction in DiffMem's system prompt was flagged as working against the person the product is talking to, most of them under privacy & data protection. Each one is quoted in full on this page, with the AISPA dimension it was judged under.

How long is DiffMem's system prompt?

5,967 characters across 1 prompt on this page. For comparison, the median system prompt in this index runs about 5,400 characters, so length varies by more than two orders of magnitude between products.

How many versions of DiffMem's system prompt are on record?

1. Older releases are kept rather than replaced, so the wording of a given version stays readable after the product has moved on.

Where did this DiffMem system prompt come from?

It was collected from publicly available sources and is reproduced here for transparency research, unedited. This site does not extract prompts from products itself.

How was DiffMem's system prompt audited?

Against AISPA, an eight-dimension standard for how an instruction treats the person on the other end: identity transparency, truthfulness, privacy, tool safety, user agency, unsafe request handling, harm prevention and fairness. This audit was ai audit. The method is described in the paper behind the standard.

How this page was made

The prompt text above is reproduced verbatim from a public source. Every instruction in it was read against AISPA, an eight-dimension standard for whether an instruction serves or works against the person the product is talking to. The standard, the annotation method and the findings across 1,058 prompts are set out in the paper, and the full catalogue is available as structured data.

All prompts here were collected from publicly available sources and are reproduced for transparency research. Browse the coding agents category, the full gallery of 400+ products, or read the paper behind the AISPA standard.