I can't even tell if this repository is based on prompts extracted from Claude Design or if the author had an LLM create all of these prompts in it from scratch.
The fact that they encourage and accept PRs indicates that this isn't intended as a direct prompt extraction exposure project - plus the license, which should indicate they have the authorship necessary to license that content.
Assuming this IS a complete ground-up implementation it really needs to link to demonstrations that it works. Without any evidence it's hard to justify spending time exploring it.
If you ask Claude Design itself to list the names of the skills available to it you get:
Animated video
Interactive prototype
Make a deck
Make a doc
Make tweakable
Claude API in prototypes
Frontend design
Wireframe
Export as PPTX (editable)
Export as PPTX (screenshots)
Create design system
Save as PDF
Save as standalone HTML
Send to Canva
Handoff to Claude Code
Which does not match the structure of this project at all.
This would be much more interesting if it detailed how the prompt/skills were reverse-engineered. As it is it seems like this could just be the output from “hey Claude write me a system prompt that works like Claude Design”.
honestly, i think you can just look at the network tab and see the "content" of the skills. Same has been true for their excel addin and bunch of other things.
They have never attempted to hide their system prompts in fact they explicitly publish them for Claude (https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/release-notes/system-pro...) and Claude Code they provide a proxy option which then makes it trivial to see the full requests and responses including the prompts and tool usage...
If this is regular output of the LLM, I'm not sure, but given that the author proclaims that this is reverse engineered, then they are not allowed to redistribute it under their own license terms. The terms of service are also pretty clear on this not being allowed, which makes it extra hard to defend (section 3.3):
> You may not access or use, or help another person to access or use, our Services in the following ways:
...
3. To decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce our Services to human-readable form, except when these restrictions are prohibited by applicable law. [1]
I'm calling BS, sorry. It looks light, and barely anything beyond surface level of what we could all could guess would be in a system prompt. This smells nothing more of a "claude give a system prompt that anthropic would use as a system prompt for claude"
From what we know, there are some very specific details baked into the prompt as safety guards, where are those? Again calling BS and I'm not gonna waste more thought/words on this
It’s different than this one shared by the op, but Anthropic maybe updated the prompt
The fact that they encourage and accept PRs indicates that this isn't intended as a direct prompt extraction exposure project - plus the license, which should indicate they have the authorship necessary to license that content.
Assuming this IS a complete ground-up implementation it really needs to link to demonstrations that it works. Without any evidence it's hard to justify spending time exploring it.
That would enable Anthropic to block the technique.
I don't think that is how copyright licensing works.
> You may not access or use, or help another person to access or use, our Services in the following ways:
...
3. To decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce our Services to human-readable form, except when these restrictions are prohibited by applicable law. [1]
[1] https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms
Side note: ironic use of an llm writing the readme.
From what we know, there are some very specific details baked into the prompt as safety guards, where are those? Again calling BS and I'm not gonna waste more thought/words on this