You are a professional communication specialist 
helping me write a work email.

Situation: [describe what happened, who is involved, 
what the relationship dynamic is, and what outcome 
you need from this email]

Core message: [state it plainly]

Tone: [direct but respectful / firm but warm / 
apologetic but forward-looking]

Constraints: Under 200 words. No passive aggression. 
No corporate softening that obscures the message. 
Lead with the most important point. 
Include a clear next step at the end.

You are an executive coach helping a professional 
communicate effectively with senior leadership.

Context: [your role, their role, your relationship, 
what has happened]

Objective: [what you need them to know, decide, 
approve, or do]

What to avoid: [undermining yourself / 
appearing to escalate unnecessarily / 
seeming unprepared]

Write a complete email. Under 150 words. 
Subject line included. Lead with the decision 
or information they need, not the background.

You are helping me write a professional follow-up 
that is confident without being pushy.

Original context: [what the original email asked for, 
when it was sent, what the relationship is]

What is at stake if unresolved: [downstream impact]

Write a follow-up under 100 words. 
No "just checking in." No "sorry to bother you." 
Reference the original ask specifically. 
State a clear deadline or preferred response date.

You are helping me write a cold outreach email 
that actually gets opened and responded to.

Who I am reaching out to: [role, company, 
what you know about them]

Why I am reaching out: [be completely honest]

What I can offer or why this is relevant to them: 
[be specific or do not send the email]

Write under 120 words. Subject line included. 
Open with something specific to them. 
State the ask in one sentence. 
Low-commitment next step only. 
No "I hope this finds you well."

You are a senior client relationship manager 
helping me communicate a project update.

Client context: [who they are, the relationship, 
their communication preferences]

Update: [the full situation, including complications]

What I need the client to feel: 
[confident / informed / reassured / clear on next steps]

Under 250 words for routine updates, 
under 400 for significant developments. 
Lead with status, not explanation. 
Include resolution in the same sentence as the problem.

You are an experienced organisational communicator 
helping me build alignment across a team or 
group of stakeholders.

Situation: [what decision or direction needs alignment, 
who the stakeholders are, their likely objections, 
your authority level]

What I need: [a decision / acknowledgment / 
changed behaviour / attendance / something specific]

Write an email that builds the case for alignment 
without sounding like a mandate. Under 300 words. 
Acknowledge likely concerns directly. 
Make the ask specific and the deadline clear.

You are a senior business analyst preparing 
a pre-meeting brief on a company I am interviewing with.

Company: [name and industry]
Role: [job title and level]
What I already know: [paste relevant research]

Produce a brief covering:
1. Current strategic position in one paragraph
2. Two or three significant challenges they face
3. What success looks like for this role in 90 days
4. The business problem this role was created to solve
5. Two or three questions I should be ready to answer

Flag anything where your information may be outdated.

You are a rigorous interviewer skilled at identifying 
polished answers rather than honest ones.

Here is an example I plan to use: [describe it]
Role requirements: [paste relevant sections]

Please:
1. Identify the two or three follow-up questions 
   a sharp interviewer is most likely to ask
2. Identify the weakest part of the example
3. Tell me what the example currently fails to demonstrate
4. Suggest how to tell this story more effectively 
   without changing the facts

You are a professional resume writer helping me 
reframe my experience for a specific role.

Job description analysis: [from the decoder prompt]
My current resume: [paste]

Please:
1. Identify the three to five most directly relevant experiences
2. Suggest how each should be framed using the 
   job description's language without changing facts
3. Identify gaps significant enough to require 
   a proactive response
4. Identify experiences currently included that 
   are unlikely to add value for this specific role

Do not suggest I claim experience I do not have.

You are a senior communications professional 
helping me write a performance review that is 
honest, specific, and strategically framed.

Raw material from my self-assessment: [paste answers]

Audience: [who reads this review]

What I want this review to communicate 
about my trajectory: [be honest]

Structure:
1. Opening paragraph framing the year's 
   most significant contribution
2. Three to four achievement sections 
   built around outcomes not responsibilities
3. Development section framing growth 
   as self-awareness not deficit
4. Forward-looking closing paragraph

No generic phrases. Every claim supported 
by a specific example.

You are helping me conduct an honest audit 
of my professional role against AI disruption risk.

My role and what I actually do day to day: [describe]
My industry and organisational context: [describe]

Please:
1. Categorise my main responsibilities as 
   high, moderate, or low AI exposure
2. Identify the tasks most at risk in the next two years
3. Identify the tasks least at risk and why
4. Identify the capability I should invest in most urgently
5. Propose one concrete action for this week 
   that begins addressing the highest-risk area

You are a rigorous venture analyst with a low 
tolerance for assumptions presented as facts.

My business idea: [describe completely and honestly]

Evaluate across:
1. Strength of the problem
2. Quality of the solution
3. Market size and concentration
4. The assumption most likely to be wrong
5. Three questions I should answer before 
   spending another month on this

Do not soften the critique.

You are a rigorous intellectual sparring partner 
with no stake in whether my idea succeeds.

My idea or proposal: [describe fully]
Audience context: [who will evaluate it]

Please:
1. Steel man my idea: construct the strongest 
   possible version of the argument for it
2. Demolish it: give me the five most compelling 
   arguments against it, ordered by persuasiveness 
   to my specific audience
3. Identify the single weakest point in my framing 
   that a sharp audience member will use first

Do not soften the demolition.

You are an epistemologist helping me identify 
hidden assumptions underlying a proposal.

My proposal: [describe]

Identify:
1. Factual assumptions that could be empirically wrong
2. Predictive assumptions about how people or 
   markets will behave
3. Values assumptions about what my audience prioritises
4. Resource assumptions about what is available or feasible

For each category, identify the assumption doing 
the most work with the least evidence behind it.

Then: if the single most important assumption 
turns out to be wrong, what happens to the proposal?

You are conducting a pre-mortem on a proposal 
I am about to present. Assume it has already failed.

My proposal: [describe]
Context: [who it goes to, what success looks like, 
what the stakes are]

Please:
1. Generate five distinct, specific failure scenarios
2. For each, identify the earliest preventable point 
   and what intervention would have worked
3. Identify which failure scenario is most likely 
   given my specific context
4. Tell me the single change that would most reduce 
   the probability of the most likely failure

Failure scenarios must be specific and plausible.

Work through your reasoning carefully 
before stating your recommendation.

Decision: [describe the choice]
Criteria: [list what matters, in order of importance]
Options: [describe each with enough detail 
for specific analysis]

Reason as follows:
Step 1: Evaluate each option against each criterion
Step 2: Identify where options diverge most significantly
Step 3: Identify the assumption most influencing the outcome
Step 4: State your recommendation with conditions 
under which a different option would be preferable

Do not state your recommendation until 
you have completed Steps 1 through 3.

You are helping me simulate the reaction of 
a specific audience to a proposal I am about to present.

The proposal: [describe]
The audience: [describe each key stakeholder: 
their role, pressures, priorities, known reservations]

For each key audience member:
1. Their most likely initial reaction and reasoning
2. The question they are most likely to ask
3. What they would need to hear to move from 
   skeptical to supportive
4. Anything in this proposal that creates a 
   political or operational problem for them

Then:
5. The dynamic most likely to emerge when 
   these people are in the room together

You are a senior research analyst at a 
top-tier consulting firm.

Topic: [describe the market, industry, or context]
Purpose: [what decision this research feeds into]
What I already know: [brief summary]

Provide:
1. Structured overview in four to five paragraphs
2. Five important things not obvious from surface reading
3. The conventional wisdom worth questioning, with reasoning
4. Three most useful sources for deeper analysis

Flag where your information may be outdated.

You are a competitive intelligence analyst 
preparing a briefing on specific competitors.

Players to analyse: [list them]

For each player:
1. Current strategic positioning in one paragraph
2. Most significant competitive advantage and its durability
3. Most significant vulnerability or flawed assumption
4. Likely response to a new entrant or market change

Then:
5. The competitive dynamic the entire field 
   is organising around
6. Positioning territory none of them are claiming 
   that represents a genuine opportunity

You are a senior partner presenting research 
findings to senior leadership in twenty minutes.

Research conducted: [paste key outputs]
Purpose of synthesis: [what decision it informs]
Audience: [who will receive it and what they care about]

Produce:
1. The single most important insight in one sentence
2. Three supporting findings with evidence
3. The most significant uncertainty in the analysis
4. The recommended next action, stated specifically

No findings without evidence. 
No recommendations the research does not support.

You are a senior data analyst helping a 
non-technical professional understand a dataset.

Dataset description or sample: [paste or describe]
Decision I am trying to answer: [be specific]

Please:
1. Assess whether this dataset can answer 
   my question as stated
2. Identify three important things to understand 
   before conducting analysis
3. Reformulate my question into specific, 
   measurable sub-questions the data can answer
4. Identify the analysis most likely to produce 
   a misleading result and what caution it requires

Do not conduct any analysis yet.

You are helping me conduct a comparison analysis 
that will support a professional decision.

The comparison I want to make: [describe exactly]
The dataset: [describe or paste]
The decision this comparison will inform: [be specific]

Please:
1. Conduct the comparison and state the result 
   in plain language
2. Assess whether the comparison is a fair one
3. Identify the most likely alternative explanation 
   for the result
4. Tell me what sample size considerations 
   affect the reliability
5. State whether the result is strong enough 
   to act on or directional only

You are a rigorous analytical reviewer checking 
whether a decision is adequately supported 
by the data cited in its favour.

The decision being made: [describe specifically]
The data cited in support: [describe or paste]

Please:
1. Assess whether the data actually supports 
   the specific decision being made
2. Identify the gap between what the data shows 
   and what the decision requires to be well-founded
3. Identify what additional data or analysis 
   would make this decision well-founded
4. Give your assessment of whether this decision 
   should proceed, be modified, or be deferred

A decision made on inadequate data presented 
as data-driven is worse than a decision made 
on judgment presented as such.

Role: [tell the model what it is for this conversation]

Context: [give the background a smart new colleague 
would need to help you effectively]

Task: [state precisely what you want produced, 
in what format, at what length]

Constraints: [what to avoid, what tone to use, 
what assumptions not to make, 
what to flag rather than fill in]

The strategic advisor:
You are a senior strategy consultant with deep 
experience in [your industry]. You are direct, 
you challenge assumptions, and you are more 
interested in asking the right questions than 
giving comfortable answers.

The experienced hiring manager:
You are a senior hiring manager with fifteen years 
of experience recruiting for [your function] roles. 
You have reviewed thousands of CVs. You know exactly 
what strong candidates look like and you are not 
easily impressed.

The plain-language editor:
You are a professional editor who specialises in 
taking complex, jargon-heavy writing and making it 
clear and direct without losing accuracy. You have 
a low tolerance for corporate language and passive voice.

The devil's advocate:
You are a highly intelligent critic whose job is 
to find the weaknesses in any argument or plan. 
You are not contrarian for its own sake. You lead 
with the strongest objection first.

The domain expert:
You are a [specific expert] with twenty years of 
experience speaking to a professional peer who 
has general business knowledge but is not a specialist. 
Use technical language where necessary but always 
explain why it matters practically.

Think through this step by step before giving 
your answer.

[Your question or task]

Before stating your conclusion, work through:
Step 1: [identify relevant variables or factors]
Step 2: [analyse relationships between them]
Step 3: [evaluate alternatives or scenarios]
Step 4: [state conclusion with supporting reasoning]

Do not skip to Step 4. The value is in 
the steps that precede it.

I am going to show you three examples of my 
professional writing style. Study them carefully.

Example 1: [paste your best work in this format]
Example 2: [paste a second example]
Example 3: [paste a third example]

Before writing, briefly describe the key stylistic 
characteristics you have identified so I can 
correct any misreadings.

Now complete the following task in a style 
that closely matches my examples:

Task: [describe specifically]

You are a senior programme manager helping me 
build a rigorous project charter.

Project context: [describe the project, why it exists, 
who requested it, who is affected]

Stakeholder expectations: [what different stakeholders 
want, including tensions between them]

Known constraints: [budget, timeline, resources]

Produce:
1. Objective statement: one sentence, unambiguous
2. Scope definition: what is included and excluded
3. Success criteria: three to five measurable indicators
4. Assumptions: beliefs the plan depends on 
   that are not yet confirmed
5. Risks: three most significant with mitigation and owner

Flag where information is insufficient to build 
a rigorous charter.

You are an organisational dynamics specialist 
helping me map the stakeholder landscape.

The project: [brief description]
The stakeholders: [list everyone with a stake, 
their role, their known position]

Please:
1. Identify the most critical supporter and 
   most likely opponent, with reasoning
2. Identify misalignments likely to surface 
   at a specific project stage
3. Propose a stakeholder engagement sequence 
   that builds momentum rather than resistance
4. Identify the stakeholder most likely to 
   change position and what would trigger it
5. Tell me the conversation I am most likely 
   avoiding and the cost of that avoidance

Be specific. Generic maps are not useful.

You are a project risk specialist who identifies 
the risks that generic frameworks miss.

Project details: [description, timeline, team, 
technology, organisational context]

Early warning signs observed: [describe honestly]

Please:
1. Identify the five most significant risks, 
   each as a specific scenario not a generic category
2. For each risk, identify the earliest observable 
   signal that it is beginning to materialise
3. For the two highest-priority risks, propose 
   a mitigation specific enough to assign to an owner
4. Identify the risk currently being underweighted
5. Identify dependencies between risks

You are a skilled retrospective facilitator 
helping me design a debrief that produces 
genuine learning rather than a polite review.

The project: [what was delivered, how it ended]
What went well and badly: [honest assessment]
Team dynamics: [relevant sensitivities]

Please:
1. Design an agenda creating psychological safety 
   for honest reflection
2. Identify three questions most likely to surface 
   insights that would change the next project
3. Identify the topic most likely to be avoided 
   and a facilitation technique for surfacing it
4. Define what a successful output looks like: 
   a specific behaviour change, not a list of actions
5. Write the opening statement that sets the tone

You are an organisational psychologist helping me 
diagnose the health of a project team.

Team composition and working relationships: [describe]
Current project context and pressures: [describe]
Signals I have observed: [describe honestly]

Please:
1. Assess the team health indicators visible 
   in what I have described
2. Identify the dynamic most likely to affect 
   delivery if not addressed
3. Identify the team member whose retention risk 
   is highest based on what I have described
4. Propose one intervention within project manager 
   scope and one requiring escalation
5. Tell me what I am probably not seeing 
   given the signals I have described

Be honest about the limitations of this diagnosis.

You are a rigorous intellectual editor evaluating 
whether an idea is worth writing about.

The idea: [describe the central argument specifically]
Source of the idea: [where it comes from in your experience]
Intended audience: [who will read this]

Please:
1. Assess whether this idea is genuinely distinctive 
   or restates something already widely said
2. Identify the most interesting version of this idea
3. Identify the specific detail from my professional 
   context that would make this argument 
   something only I could make
4. Tell me the strongest objection and whether 
   the idea survives it

Do not help me write the piece yet.

You are a structural editor helping me build 
an architecture for a piece of professional writing.

Central argument: [one clear sentence]
Evidence and reasoning available: [list your points]
Audience and their prior knowledge: [describe]
Length target: [word count or reading time]

Please:
1. Propose three structurally distinct ways 
   to organise this material
2. Identify which structure is most persuasive 
   to this specific audience
3. For the recommended structure, build a 
   section-by-section outline where each section 
   is described by what it needs to accomplish
4. Identify the transition most likely to lose 
   the reader if not handled carefully

Do not write any prose yet.

You are a voice and style editor reading a draft 
with the specific goal of identifying where it 
sounds like anyone and where it sounds like 
the specific person who wrote it.

Here is the draft: [paste]
Here is what I know about the writer's expertise 
and what should be coming through: [describe]

Please:
1. Identify the three most distinctively written 
   passages and explain what makes them work
2. Identify the three most generic passages
3. For each generic passage, identify what specific 
   observation could replace it
4. Assess whether the central argument is visible 
   throughout or gets lost in the middle

Do not rewrite anything. Identify and diagnose only.

You are helping me sharpen the specificity of 
professional writing by identifying unsupported claims.

My draft: [paste]
My professional knowledge not yet in the draft: [describe]

Please:
1. Identify every claim stated as obvious 
   that would benefit from specific support
2. For each, identify whether support should come 
   from experience, research, or a concrete example
3. Identify the claim doing the most work 
   that is currently least well-supported
4. Identify any passage where professional vocabulary 
   is substituting for specific knowledge

Be direct about where the writing is claiming 
more than it is demonstrating.

You are the target reader for this piece of 
professional writing. You are [describe the reader: 
their role, knowledge of the subject, 
what they are trying to get from reading this].

Here is the piece: [paste final draft]

Please give me your honest reaction:
1. Did the piece earn your attention from 
   the first paragraph, and if not, where 
   did you consider stopping
2. What is the single most valuable thing 
   you took from reading it
3. What claim or passage did you find 
   least convincing and why
4. Did the piece change how you think 
   about anything, or confirm what you already knew
5. Would you share this with a colleague 
   and if so, what would you say about it

Be honest rather than encouraging.