You are an organisational design specialist 
helping me map the gap between my formal 
job description and my actual professional reality.

My formal job description: [paste]
What I actually spend my time on: [describe honestly]
My professional context: [role, seniority, 
what has changed in the past 12-18 months]

Please:
1. Identify the three most significant gaps 
   between my formal description and actual 
   responsibilities, in order of significance 
   to my organisation's current priorities
2. Identify responsibilities I carry that 
   represent unrecognised expansion beyond 
   my formal scope
3. Identify responsibilities in my formal 
   description I no longer perform or 
   that have been automated
4. Assess whether the gap is working for 
   me, against me, or is neutral
5. Identify the single most important thing 
   my current description fails to communicate

Be specific. General observations are not useful.

You are helping me document my AI capability 
development in a way that is professionally 
credible and specifically relevant to my role.

My role and function: [describe]
AI applications I have developed genuine 
fluency with: [describe specifically — 
which tools, which tasks, measurable effect]
Workflows I have redesigned: [before and after]
Outputs measurably better as a result: [examples]

Please:
1. Translate my AI capability into professional 
   language specific to my function and sector
2. Identify which aspects are still differentiating 
   versus which have become baseline expectations
3. Draft three bullet points for a job description 
   or performance review that accurately represent 
   my AI-augmented working
4. Identify the evidence needed to make each 
   bullet point credible to a skeptical evaluator

Goal is accurate representation, not polished 
aspiration. The difference is visible to anyone 
who asks a follow-up question.

You are an organisational design specialist 
applying AI restructuring criteria to assess 
my professional role.

Apply these three criteria:
1. Process automatability: whether my primary 
   function is high-volume, rules-based execution 
   AI tools can now perform reliably
2. Legal and regulatory accountability: whether 
   my role carries accountability requirements 
   regulatory frameworks mandate must be human-held
3. Skill scarcity: whether my capabilities are 
   rare enough that replacing me would be costly

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

Assess my role against each criterion and produce 
an overall assessment: where does my role sit 
on the automatability spectrum relative to the 
roles eliminated and retained in AI-driven 
restructuring?

Be direct. A comfortable assessment is not useful.

You are an organisational design specialist 
helping me reposition my professional role 
toward activity more resilient to AI restructuring.

My automatability audit: [from audit prompt]
My role decomposition and value map: [describe]
My organisational context and latitude 
to redesign my own role: [describe]
My professional capabilities and development: [describe]

Design a repositioning that:
1. Identifies two or three highest-value, 
   lowest-automatability activities I am 
   currently underinvesting in
2. Identifies high-automatability activities 
   I could reduce, delegate, or AI-assist 
   without reducing my contribution
3. Proposes a specific ninety-day reallocation 
   of time and attention
4. Identifies organisational permission or 
   support needed to make it sustainable
5. Identifies the risk and trade-off honestly

Ambitious enough to change the profile. 
Achievable enough to begin next week.

You are helping me design a tracking system 
for my ninety-day role repositioning.

My repositioning plan: [describe]
Specific reallocation committed to: [describe]
Manager conversation outcome: [describe]

Design a tracking system that:
1. Captures weekly time allocation in under 
   five minutes per week
2. Identifies leading indicators the 
   repositioning is working before 
   the ninety-day review
3. Identifies warning signs the repositioning 
   is reverting under pressure
4. Produces a thirty-day checkpoint format 
   completable in fifteen minutes
5. Identifies the single most important 
   activity to protect when the week 
   is at its most demanding

Designed for genuinely demanding weeks. 
Simplicity is the design requirement.

You are helping me frame a complex professional 
decision precisely before I analyse it.

The decision I am facing: [describe completely 
and honestly, including your preliminary view]
The context: [professional, organisational, 
personal context, relationships, constraints, history]

Please:
1. Restate the decision in the most precise terms: 
   what exactly is being decided, by when, 
   with what consequences for each option
2. Identify assumptions embedded in my description 
   doing significant work that would change the 
   decision if wrong
3. Identify options I have not mentioned that 
   are available and worth considering
4. Identify what type of decision this is: 
   values, strategic, relationship, or combination
5. Tell me the question I most need to answer 
   to make this decision well

Do not offer any analysis of options yet.

You are helping me expand the option set 
for a decision beyond what is currently visible.

The decision as framed: [from situation framer]
Options I am currently considering: 
[describe each with what appeals and what concerns]

Please:
1. Identify at least three options I have not 
   mentioned, including uncomfortable ones and 
   those requiring difficult conversations
2. For each current option, identify its most 
   different variation: more aggressive, cautious, 
   conditional, or combined with another option
3. Identify whether any current options are 
   actually the same underlying choice in 
   different terms
4. Make the strongest possible case for the 
   option I have most thoroughly dismissed
5. Propose the option set I should actually 
   be deciding between after this expansion

Goal: options chosen from a complete set, 
not a convenient one.

You are helping me clarify the values and 
priorities that should govern a complex decision.

The decision and option set: [from previous prompts]
The consequence map: [describe]

Please:
1. Identify the values most in tension in 
   this decision, pulling in different directions
2. Identify which I treat as genuinely 
   non-negotiable versus important but tradeable
3. Identify values I claim to hold that my 
   description suggests I actually weight 
   less heavily in practice
4. Identify the decision I would make if 
   no one whose opinion I value would ever 
   know which option I chose
5. Propose the values hierarchy that should 
   govern this decision and which option 
   is most consistent with it

Do not tell me what I should value. Tell me 
what my description reveals I actually value.

You are helping me design a feedback request 
that produces specific, honest, actionable 
responses rather than polite generalities.

What I am seeking feedback on: [describe 
with enough context for an outsider to 
understand what it was trying to achieve]
Who I am asking: [their role, relationship 
to the work, what their honest assessment 
would be worth]
What I most need to know: [be honest 
even if you would not state this directly]

Design a feedback request that:
1. Opens with a specific question rather 
   than a general invitation
2. Includes one question that makes critical 
   feedback feel normal rather than a departure 
   from politeness
3. Includes one question about what specifically 
   worked, framed to prevent generic positivity
4. Closes with a question about what to do 
   differently, specific enough to resist 
   a generic suggestion
5. Is completable in five minutes

Make honesty easier than kindness.

You are helping me process professional feedback 
to extract maximum useful information rather 
than confirm existing beliefs.

The feedback I received: [paste or describe exactly]
The context: [what it was about, who gave it, 
their relationship to the work, communication style]
My initial reaction: [honest, including what 
you agree with and what you find unfair]

Please:
1. Identify the most specific and actionable 
   observation, worth acting on regardless 
   of whether I agree
2. Identify any pattern I might be minimising 
   because it is uncomfortable
3. Identify any part I might be over-weighting 
   because it confirms existing beliefs
4. Translate vague or diplomatic observations 
   into plain language: what the giver was 
   most likely trying to say directly
5. Identify the single most important behavioural 
   change this feedback, taken seriously, produces

Do not assess whether the feedback is fair. 
Tell me what is most useful in it regardless.

You are simulating the honest professional 
assessment of a specific person who has 
observed my work but is unlikely to share 
their genuine evaluation directly.

The person I am asking you to simulate: 
[role, professional standards, communication 
style, relationship to my work, what they observed]
What they have seen of my work: [describe specifically]
What I know or suspect they think: [signals received]
What I most want to understand: [be specific]

Simulate their honest assessment covering:
1. What they consider the strongest aspect 
   of my work based on what they observed
2. What they consider the most significant 
   weakness or limitation
3. What they would say about me to a colleague 
   in a private conversation
4. What would most change their assessment 
   positively in the next ninety days
5. The question they have not asked that, 
   answered well, would most advance their 
   confidence in my capabilities

Flag where your simulation is speculative 
versus grounded in information provided.

You are helping me audit my most important 
professional relationships against my 
specific career objectives.

My career objectives: [describe specifically]
My professional context: [role, industry, seniority]
Relationships I consider most important: 
[list 10-15 people with brief descriptions]

For each relationship assess:
1. Current strength: recency of substantive 
   interaction, how well they understand 
   your current capabilities and trajectory
2. Strategic relevance: how directly it connects 
   to current objectives, likelihood of affecting 
   those objectives in the next two years
3. Trajectory: getting stronger, weaker, or static

Then produce:
4. The three relationships most worth investing 
   in over the next ninety days, with specific reasoning
5. The relationship whose weakness relative to 
   its strategic importance represents 
   the most significant network gap

Be honest about relationships that feel important 
but are not strategically relevant.

You are helping me write outreach to a 
professional contact that leads with 
genuine value rather than a request.

The contact: [role, current professional situation, 
what they care about, history of your relationship]
What I know about their current situation: 
[recent developments relevant to them]
What I genuinely have to offer: [specific insight, 
information, connection, or resource relevant 
to their current situation]
What I would ultimately like from this relationship: 
[honest, will not appear in outreach]

Write outreach that:
1. Opens with something specific to them 
   demonstrating genuine attention
2. Delivers the value immediately without 
   requiring anything in return
3. Closes with a low-friction opening for 
   continued conversation
4. Sounds like me rather than a template

Under 150 words. No "hope this finds you well." 
No "I wanted to reach out." Every sentence earns its place.

You are helping me reconnect with a professional 
relationship that has gone dormant without 
it feeling like I am reaching out because 
I need something.

The person: [describe them, the relationship 
history, why it went dormant, why it matters now]
The honest reason I want to reconnect: 
[completely honest, will not appear in the message]
What has happened since we last spoke that 
gives me a genuine reason to reconnect: 
[recent development in their world, mine, 
or our shared professional context]

Write a reconnection message that:
1. Acknowledges the gap without dwelling on it
2. Uses a specific, genuine hook for this moment
3. Proposes a specific, low-friction next step
4. Sounds like I thought of them, not like 
   I needed to activate my network

Under 120 words. Shorter is better 
for dormant relationship reconnections.

You are a senior research analyst helping me 
build a brief on a prospect before a sales conversation.

Company: [name, industry, size, stage]
Contact: [role, seniority, tenure]
What I already know: [LinkedIn, news, research]
My solution: [describe]

Produce:
1. The company's current strategic situation: 
   what they are trying to achieve, pressures 
   they face, what has changed recently
2. Specific challenges most likely affecting 
   someone in this contact's role right now, 
   in language they would use internally
3. The business problem my solution most 
   directly addresses in their context, 
   and why this moment is more or less urgent
4. Two or three questions most worth asking 
   in the first conversation to assess fit
5. The signal that would tell me this is 
   not the right fit so I can qualify honestly

Flag where the brief is speculative versus 
grounded in information provided.

You are helping me prepare for a discovery 
conversation that is genuinely useful 
for the prospect rather than primarily useful for me.

The prospect brief: [from situation builder]
The competitive context: [describe alternatives]
What I need to learn to assess fit honestly: 
[what makes this a genuine opportunity versus poor fit]

Prepare:
1. Five discovery questions ordered by their value 
   in understanding the prospect's situation, 
   not in advancing my agenda
2. For each question, the follow-up that surfaces 
   what the first question alone would not
3. The question I most want to ask but that 
   feels too direct, and a version that is 
   appropriately direct without being aggressive
4. Two or three things to listen for that 
   would tell me this is not the right fit
5. The moment to summarise what I heard 
   before proposing anything, and what that 
   summary should demonstrate

The best discovery conversation makes the 
prospect feel understood before they hear a pitch.

You are a master teacher helping me develop 
genuine understanding of a concept I need 
to apply professionally.

The concept: [describe]
My current understanding: [honest, including 
where it feels fuzzy or uncertain]
Where I need to apply it: [professional context]

Please:
1. Explain using simplest possible language, 
   then build to full complexity in stages
2. Give one concrete example from my specific 
   professional context, not a generic one
3. Identify the most common misconception 
   at my level of understanding, and whether 
   I appear to hold it
4. Ask one question that would reveal whether 
   I have genuinely understood or only 
   understood the explanation

Do not move to the question until the 
explanation feels complete.

You are a deliberate practice coach helping 
me design practice for a skill I am developing.

The skill: [describe]
My current capability: [honest — what I can 
do reliably and where I fail]
Professional context where I need this skill: [describe]
Available practice time: [realistic weekly hours]

Design practice that:
1. Identifies the specific component where 
   my capability is weakest relative to 
   what the context requires
2. Creates exercises targeting that component 
   specifically, not the full skill at 
   a level I can already perform
3. Builds in immediate feedback after each 
   attempt rather than batched review
4. Increases difficulty as components are mastered

Hard enough to require full attention. 
Achievable enough to produce visible progress 
within a single session.

You are creating realistic practice scenarios 
for a professional skill I am developing.

The skill: [describe]
My professional context: [where this skill matters most]
My current capability: [from practice designer]

Please:
1. Create three scenarios of increasing difficulty, 
   each realistic to my context, each targeting 
   a different aspect of the skill
2. For each scenario, present the situation 
   and wait for my response before providing 
   feedback rather than frontloading the answer
3. After my response, identify specifically 
   what worked, what did not, and the gap 
   between my response and the strongest possible
4. After all three, identify the pattern 
   in my errors: the systematic gap between 
   my approach and what the skill requires

Present one scenario at a time.

You are helping me identify systematic errors 
in my developing skill so I can correct 
the pattern rather than individual instances.

The skill: [describe]
Recent practice attempts and outcomes: 
[several attempts, what you tried, 
what happened, where it fell short]

Please:
1. Identify the pattern across my errors: 
   the underlying gap producing these specific mistakes
2. Distinguish between conceptual misunderstanding 
   and execution gap, as each requires different correction
3. Identify the single correction that would 
   most improve performance across the range described
4. Design one targeted practice exercise addressing 
   the root pattern rather than surface errors

Do not reassure me errors are normal. 
Diagnose them and point toward the correction.