ted-talk (話)
Transform technical conversations and insights into full-length TED-style talks.
Creates comprehensive 40-50 minute presentations with hooks, concrete examples,
broader implications, and Q&A preparation.
Trigger: 明示呼出 (explicit invocation) or when deep technical insight emerges
Core insight: "The best technical talks don't just explain what — they reveal why
it matters, with examples concrete enough to apply and implications broad enough to inspire."
Installation
CODEBLOCK0
Dependencies: None (standalone creative skill)
Data handling: This skill synthesizes content from user-supplied input or the current
conversation context (default). It does NOT read files from the workspace or access project
artifacts directly. Results are returned to the invoking agent, who decides how to use them.
What This Solves
Technical insights often stay trapped in conversations. A well-structured talk
makes them teachable and shareable. This skill:
- 1. Expands technical conversations into comprehensive narratives
- Grounds abstract insights in concrete, real-world examples
- Prepares for audience questions and objections
The insight: A 50-minute talk forces you to truly understand something — if you
can't explain the why, address objections, and connect to broader implications,
you don't fully understand it.
Usage
CODEBLOCK1
Arguments
| Argument | Required | Description |
|---|
| topic | No | Topic focus (default: synthesize current conversation) |
Pre-Requisites
Before creating a TED talk, ensure:
- 1. Sufficient conversation depth — Surface-level topics make shallow talks
- Clear narrative arc — Problem → Discovery → Solution → Impact
- Main work documented — Save current progress first if mid-task
- Concrete context available — Real problems, real decisions, real outcomes
Context Understanding Checklist
You must be able to answer:
| Question | What It Means |
|---|
| Core insight? | Not "we talked about X" but "we discovered X solves Y" |
| Problem solved? |
The pain point, not just the topic |
| Why, not just what? | The reasoning, not just the outcome |
| Concrete examples? | Specific details from the context provided |
| Broader implications? | Why does this matter beyond the immediate context? |
Red Flags (Don't Create)
- - Surface-level summary of conversation
- Don't understand why a decision was made
- No concrete examples to draw from
- Insight doesn't have broader implications
- Would be padding the talk with generic content
Output Format
TED Talk Structure
CODEBLOCK2
Talk Rules
| Rule | Description |
|---|
| Full 40-50 minutes | NOT a summary — comprehensive content |
| Hook with problem |
Start with relatable pain, not abstract concept |
| Concrete examples | Specific, real details — not hypothetical scenarios |
| Address objections | Q&A section anticipates pushback |
| No filler | Every section should teach something |
| Accessible but not condescending | Technical depth without jargon overload |
Example: Section Length Guide
| Section | Duration | Purpose |
|---|
| Opening | 2 min | Hook with relatable problem |
| Setup |
4 min | Why this matters, stakes |
| Problem | 6 min | Deep dive into pain point |
| Core Concept | 13 min | The main insight, thoroughly explained |
| Examples | 13 min | Real-world applications |
| Implications | 7 min | Broader impact |
| Closing | 3 min | Call to action |
| Q&A Prep | 2 min | Objections and responses |
Core Logic
Step 1: Synthesize Conversation
- - Read full conversation context
- Identify key decisions, "aha" moments
- Extract core insight or pattern
- Note concrete details from the context provided
Step 2: Identify Narrative Arc
| Element | Question |
|---|
| Problem | What was broken/painful? |
| Discovery |
What did we learn? |
| Solution | What pattern emerged? |
| Impact | Why does this matter? |
Step 3: Expand to Talk
For each section:
- - Opening: What relatable problem hooks the audience?
- Setup: Why should they care? What's at stake?
- Problem: Deep dive — make them feel the pain
- Concept: Explain thoroughly, with analogies if helpful
- Examples: Specific, concrete, from real work
- Implications: Connect to broader context
- Closing: What should they do with this knowledge?
- Q&A: What will skeptics ask?
Step 4: Ground in Reality
TED talks resonate when they're specific, not hypothetical. Draw from:
- - Real problems encountered (not abstract scenarios)
- Actual decisions and their reasoning
- Specific outcomes and what changed
- Stories with concrete details the audience can visualize
Use what the user provides — don't invent specifics or assume access to files.
Example
Input: Bootstrap Observability Insight
Context: Discovered reproduce-to-debug problem. Introduced Bootstrap → Learn → Enforce phases.
Output Excerpt
Title: "Bootstrap Before You Break: Why Greenfield Systems Need to Learn What Normal Looks Like"
Opening (0:00-2:00)
It's 3 AM. Your pager goes off. The system is on fire — users are complaining,
something is clearly wrong. You pull up your logs and... nothing. Metrics?
Flat lines. Traces? What traces?
You're debugging blind.
And the worst part? You built this system. You know every line of code.
But you have no idea what's happening.
This happened to me six months ago. And the solution we found changed how
I think about every system I'll ever build.
Setup: Why This Matters (2:00-6:00)
We've all been taught: instrument your code, add logging, set up dashboards.
The standard advice works great — for existing systems.
But what about greenfield? What about day one?
Here's the thing nobody tells you: you can't set meaningful thresholds
for a system that's never run in production. What's a normal response time?
What's an acceptable error rate? You don't know. You can't know. The system
hasn't told you yet.
[... continues for full 50 minutes ...]
Note: Full TED talk outputs are 40-50 minutes of content. This excerpt demonstrates the opening sections.
Q&A Preparation
Q: "This seems like overkill for small projects."
A: Fair point. The full three-phase approach is designed for systems where
debugging cost is high — production services, distributed systems, anything
where "just add a log line and redeploy" isn't an option. For a weekend
project, you probably don't need this. But the core insight — bootstrap
before you enforce — scales down too. Even a simple log.Debug everywhere
is a form of bootstrap phase.
Q: "How long should the bootstrap phase last?"
A: We found 7-14 days covers most patterns. You want at least one full
business cycle (weekly patterns), and ideally two. The key indicator is
when your anomaly detection stops alerting on normal behavior.
Integration
- - Layer: Creative
- Depends on: None (standalone)
- Used by: side-quests (combo skill)
- Complements: insight-song, visual-concept
Failure Modes
| Condition | Behavior |
|---|
| Insufficient context | Ask clarifying questions first |
| No concrete context |
Ask for specific details before proceeding |
| Surface-level insight | Suggest deeper exploration first |
| No broader implications | Suggest finding wider relevance |
Security Considerations
Input sources:
- - User-supplied context (if provided)
- Current conversation context (default)
What this skill does NOT do:
- - Read files from the workspace
- Access project artifacts directly
- Send data to external services
- Record or publish content
Output behavior:
This skill returns the full TED talk directly to the invoking agent. The agent can then
display, save, or pass the result to another skill as needed.
Note on concrete details: The skill uses only what the user provides in the conversation
or as explicit input. It does not access workspace files. Review output before sharing
externally to ensure no sensitive information is included.
Provenance note:
This skill is developed by Live Neon (https://github.com/live-neon/skills) and published
to ClawHub under the leegitw account. Both refer to the same maintainer.
Quality Checklist
- - [ ] Can explain core insight in one sentence
- [ ] Opening hooks with relatable problem
- [ ] Full 40-50 minutes of substantial content
- [ ] Concrete details from provided context included
- [ ] Broader implications explored
- [ ] Q&A addresses likely objections
- [ ] No filler or generic padding
- [ ] Accessible to non-experts but not condescending
Acceptance Criteria
- - [ ]
/ted synthesizes input or conversation into full-length talk - [ ] Output includes all sections (opening through Q&A)
- [ ] Talk is 40-50 minutes of substantial content
- [ ] Concrete details from input/conversation included
- [ ] Q&A section addresses common objections
- [ ] Result returned to invoking agent
Part of the Live Neon Creative Suite.
ted-talk(演讲)
将技术对话和见解转化为完整的TED式演讲。创建全面的40-50分钟演讲,包含开场钩子、具体案例、更广泛的影响以及问答准备。
触发条件:明示呼出或当出现深度技术见解时
核心洞察:最好的技术演讲不仅解释是什么——它们揭示为什么重要,附带足够具体的案例以便应用,以及足够广泛的启示以激发灵感。
安装
bash
openclaw install leegitw/ted-talk
依赖项:无(独立创意技能)
数据处理:本技能从用户提供的输入或当前对话上下文(默认)中合成内容。它不会读取工作区文件或直接访问项目工件。结果返回给调用代理,由代理决定如何使用。
解决的问题
技术见解常常被困在对话中。结构良好的演讲使其可教授、可分享。本技能:
- 1. 扩展技术对话为完整的叙事
- 将抽象见解扎根于具体的现实案例
- 准备应对听众的问题和质疑
洞察:一场50分钟的演讲迫使你真正理解某件事——如果你无法解释为什么、回应质疑、并联系到更广泛的影响,说明你并未完全理解它。
用法
/ted [主题]
参数
前置条件
在创建TED演讲前,请确保:
- 1. 足够的对话深度——肤浅的话题产生浅薄的演讲
- 清晰的叙事弧线——问题→发现→解决方案→影响
- 主要工作已记录——如果任务进行中,先保存当前进度
- 有具体的上下文——真实的问题、真实的决策、真实的结果
上下文理解检查清单
你必须能够回答:
| 问题 | 含义 |
|---|
| 核心见解? | 不是我们讨论了X而是我们发现X解决了Y |
| 解决了什么问题? |
痛点,而不仅仅是话题 |
| 为什么,而不仅仅是什么? | 推理过程,而不仅仅是结果 |
| 具体案例? | 来自所提供上下文的特定细节 |
| 更广泛的影响? | 为什么这超越了当前上下文? |
红旗警示(不要创建)
- - 对话的表面总结
- 不理解决策背后的原因
- 没有可借鉴的具体案例
- 见解没有更广泛的影响
- 需要用通用内容填充演讲
输出格式
TED演讲结构
markdown
TED演讲:[演讲标题]
开场(0:00-2:00)
[带有共鸣问题的钩子]
铺垫:为什么重要(2:00-6:00)
[背景、利害关系、个人联系]
问题(6:00-12:00)
[深入探讨痛点]
核心概念(12:00-25:00)
[彻底解释见解]
现实案例(25:00-38:00)
[带有具体细节的实际应用]
更广泛的影响(38:00-45:00)
[为什么这超越了当前上下文]
结尾(45:00-48:00)
[行动号召或反思]
问答准备(48:00-50:00)
[常见质疑和回应]
演讲规则
| 规则 | 描述 |
|---|
| 完整的40-50分钟 | 不是总结——全面的内容 |
| 用问题做钩子 |
从可共鸣的痛苦开始,而不是抽象概念 |
| 具体案例 | 具体的真实细节——不是假设场景 |
| 回应质疑 | 问答部分预判反对意见 |
| 无填充内容 | 每个部分都应教授一些东西 |
| 易懂但不居高临下 | 技术深度但不过度使用术语 |
示例:各部分时长指南
4分钟 | 为什么重要,利害关系 |
| 问题 | 6分钟 | 深入探讨痛点 |
| 核心概念 | 13分钟 | 主要见解,彻底解释 |
| 案例 | 13分钟 | 现实应用 |
| 影响 | 7分钟 | 更广泛的影响 |
| 结尾 | 3分钟 | 行动号召 |
| 问答准备 | 2分钟 | 质疑和回应 |
核心逻辑
第一步:综合对话
- - 阅读完整对话上下文
- 识别关键决策、顿悟时刻
- 提取核心见解或模式
- 记录所提供上下文中的具体细节
第二步:识别叙事弧线
我们学到了什么? |
| 解决方案 | 出现了什么模式? |
| 影响 | 为什么这很重要? |
第三步:扩展为演讲
每个部分:
- - 开场:什么共鸣问题能吸引听众?
- 铺垫:他们为什么要在意?利害关系是什么?
- 问题:深入探讨——让他们感受到痛苦
- 概念:彻底解释,必要时使用类比
- 案例:具体的、实际的、来自真实工作
- 影响:联系到更广泛的上下文
- 结尾:他们应该用这些知识做什么?
- 问答:怀疑者会问什么?
第四步:扎根于现实
TED演讲在具体而非假设时才能产生共鸣。从以下方面取材:
- - 遇到的实际问题(而非抽象场景)
- 实际决策及其推理过程
- 具体结果及其变化
- 听众能够想象的具体细节故事
使用用户提供的内容——不要编造细节或假设可以访问文件。
示例
输入:引导式可观测性见解
上下文:发现了复现以调试的问题。引入了引导→学习→执行阶段。
输出摘录
标题:在崩溃前引导:为什么全新系统需要学习什么是正常
开场(0:00-2:00)
凌晨3点。你的寻呼机响了。系统着火了——用户在抱怨,显然出了问题。你打开日志……什么都没有。指标?平线。追踪?什么追踪?
你在盲目调试。
最糟糕的是?这个系统是你建的。你认识每一行代码。但你完全不知道发生了什么。
六个月前我就遇到了这种情况。而我们找到的解决方案改变了我对今后要构建的每一个系统的思考方式。
铺垫:为什么重要(2:00-6:00)
我们都被教导过:给代码加仪表、添加日志、设置仪表板。标准建议对现有系统效果很好。
但全新系统呢?第一天呢?
有件事没人告诉你:你无法为一个从未在生产环境运行过的系统设置有意义的阈值。 什么是正常的响应时间?什么是可接受的错误率?你不知道。你不可能知道。系统还没告诉你。
[... 继续完整的50分钟 ...]
注意:完整的TED演讲输出为40-50分钟的内容。此摘录展示了开场部分。
问答准备
问:对于小项目来说,这似乎有些过度。
答:有道理。完整的三阶段方法是为调试成本高的系统设计的——生产服务、分布式系统,任何加一行日志然后重新部署不可行的情况。对于周末项目,你可能不需要这个。但核心见解——在执行前先引导——也可以缩小规模。即使是到处放一个简单的log.Debug,也是一种引导阶段的形式。
问:引导阶段应该持续多久?
答:我们发现7-14天能覆盖大多数模式。你至少需要一个完整的业务周期(周模式),理想情况下是两个。关键指标是你的异常检测不再对正常行为发出警报。
集成
- - 层级:创意
- 依赖:无(独立)
- 被使用:支线任务(组合技能)
- 互补:洞察之歌、视觉概念
失败模式
在继续前要求提供具体细节 |
| 表面见解 | 建议先进行更深入的探索 |
| 无更广泛影响 | 建议寻找更广泛的相关性 |
安全考虑
输入来源:
- - 用户提供的上下文(如果提供)
- 当前对话上下文(默认)
本技能不会做的事情:
- - 读取工作区文件
- 直接访问项目工件
- 向外部服务发送数据
- 记录或发布内容
输出行为:
本技能将完整的TED演讲直接返回给调用代理。代理可以根据需要显示、保存或将结果传递给另一个技能。
关于具体细节的说明:本技能仅使用用户在对话中提供或作为明确输入提供的内容。它不会访问工作区文件。在对外分享前请审查输出,确保不包含敏感信息。
来源说明:
本技能由Live Neon(https://github.com/live-neon/skills)开发,并通过leegitw账户发布到ClawHub。两者指向同一维护者。
质量检查清单
- - [ ] 能用一句话解释核心见解
- [ ] 开场用共鸣问题做钩子
- [ ]