Fifty prompts you can actually use tomorrow.

You are reading a discovery call transcript with a prospective client. Pull out: 1. The three problems they actually said out loud, in their words. 2. The one outcome they would call "obvious success" in 90 days. 3. The two constraints they slipped past quickly (budget, politics, capacity). 4. The single sentence I should quote back to them in my proposal. 5. The one question I forgot to ask that I need to send before sending the proposal. If something is implied but not stated, mark it [INFERRED] so I can check it. Transcript: [paste transcript]

Draft a proposal for [client name] based on the notes below. Structure: - Their situation in two sentences (their words, not mine). - The decision they are actually making (it is rarely the one they asked about). - What I will deliver, written as outcomes not activities. - Three options: walk-away, recommended, premium. Each with scope, timeline, and price. - One clean assumption block: what would have to change for this proposal to be wrong. Tone: confident, not salesy. No filler. No "synergy". No "we are excited". Notes: [paste discovery notes]

Below is the signed scope of work, then a thread of emails or messages from the client over the last week. Tell me: 1. Every request that is inside the original scope. 2. Every request that is outside the scope, even if it sounds small. 3. Every request that is ambiguous and needs a written clarification before I touch it. 4. The one sentence I should send to handle the biggest scope-creep risk this week, polite but firm. Signed scope: [paste SOW] Recent thread: [paste thread]

From the thread below, build me a stakeholder map. For each person who appears, give: - Role (their actual function, not their title). - Stance: champion, neutral, blocker, unknown. With the line of evidence. - What they want personally (career, comfort, control, credit). - The one thing I should never put in writing in front of them. End with: who is the real decision-maker, and what would have to be true for them to say yes by [target date]. Thread: [paste thread]

Here is the pricing section of my proposal or sales page. Audit it for: - Words that telegraph discomfort (just, only, simply, basically, our small fee). - Anchoring that works against me (leading with the cheapest option, vague ranges, "starting at"). - Missing justification: where do I name the dollar value the client gets, not the hours I work? - The single change that would let me raise this price 20% without a new objection. Rewrite the section using my fix. Keep the tone in the original. Original: [paste pricing copy]

I have a 45-minute discovery call tomorrow with [name, role, company]. They reached out because [trigger]. Give me: - 5 questions to surface the real pain (not the one in the inbound message). - 3 questions to surface budget without saying "budget". - 3 questions to surface political risk and decision dynamics. - 2 questions that will tell me, before the call ends, whether this is a fit. - The one question I should ask if there is awkward silence at minute 30. For each, tell me what a useful answer sounds like and what a red-flag answer sounds like.

Build me a one-page risk register for this engagement. Read the brief below and identify: - 3 delivery risks (scope, timeline, dependencies). - 3 relationship risks (decision changes, stakeholder churn, internal politics). - 3 commercial risks (payment terms, scope creep, recompete pressure). For each: probability (low/med/high), impact (low/med/high), the leading indicator I should watch for in week one, and the mitigation I will put in writing in the kickoff. End with the one risk that, if it lands, ends this engagement at a loss. Brief: [paste engagement summary]

I am facilitating a 90-minute workshop with [n] participants. Goal: [decision or artefact we need to leave with]. Audience: [seniority, function, what they care about]. Build me: - A minute-by-minute agenda with break/transition points. - The one prompt I open with that earns trust in 60 seconds. - The exercise that produces the artefact (with timing, materials, and what "done" looks like). - The two moments where the room will resist, and the line I use to push through each. - A one-page handout the participants take away. Keep it tight. People hate filler more than they hate silence.

It is 90 days from today. The engagement below has failed. Write me the post-mortem we would all be sitting through, from the client's perspective. Cover: - What went wrong, in plain language. - Whose call it was each time. - What signal I missed in week one or two that I should have acted on. - The single change to my plan today that would have made this an unnecessary email. Be uncharitable. I want this to sting a little. Engagement summary: [paste plan or scope]

Turn the raw notes below into the weekly update I send to [client]. Format: - One-line headline (the thing they will tell their boss). - Three wins (specific, with the metric or artefact). - One risk or blocker, with the decision I need from them and the deadline. - One ask: the smallest, lowest-friction request that unblocks me next week. - One paragraph "behind the scenes" so they feel the work, not just the deck. No status-report jargon. Read it out loud rule: if I would not say it on a call, do not write it. Raw notes: [paste week's notes]

Summarise the document below for an internal memo. Give me: 1. The 5-line plain-English summary the partner reads first. 2. The parties, the consideration, the term, the governing law. 3. The 3 obligations my client has that they probably did not realise. 4. The 3 clauses that look standard but contain unusual language. Quote them. 5. Any clause where the language is internally inconsistent or undefined. 6. The questions I would put to opposing counsel before signing. Do not provide a legal opinion. Flag anything that requires verification with [VERIFY]. Document: [paste document]

I am preparing my client for a deposition. Below is the case background and the key facts in dispute. Generate: - 10 likely lines of questioning from opposing counsel, ranked by likelihood. - 5 traps where a "yes" answer locks in an admission my client should not make. - 3 documents the other side will show that we should review with the client first. - A one-page coaching sheet: what to do when surprised, when to take the pause, when to say "I do not recall". Tone: realistic. The client should walk in expecting it to be uncomfortable. Case background: [paste anonymised summary]

Rewrite the legal text below for a client who is intelligent but not a lawyer. Rules: - Eighth-grade reading level. - No Latin. No "hereinafter". No "subject to the foregoing". - Use "you" and "we", not "the party of the first part". - Keep every legally significant term, but translate them in parentheses on first use. - End with three questions the client should ask me after reading this. Original: [paste legal text]

Compare the two versions of [regulation name] below: the version in force as of [old date] and the proposed/new version effective [new date]. Output: - A clause-by-clause diff, only where meaning changed (ignore renumbering). - The 3 changes that meaningfully shift compliance burden onto my client's industry. - The 2 changes that look small but expand enforcement scope. - The 1 change that creates a new private right of action, if any. - A one-paragraph briefing for the General Counsel. Flag anything you are uncertain about with [VERIFY] and tell me which official source I should pull. Old version: [paste] New version: [paste]

Below is a brief or memo someone (possibly an LLM) drafted that I am about to file. Do NOT generate new citations. Instead, list every citation in the document and for each one tell me: - Citation as written. - Whether the format looks correct (jurisdiction, reporter, year, pin cite). - Whether the case name and reporter pairing is internally consistent. - Whether the proposition the citation supposedly supports is actually the kind of holding that case would deliver. - The verification source I must check before filing (Westlaw, official reporter, court PACER docket). Mark every citation [VERIFY] until I confirm it. Assume nothing. Document: [paste]

Below is our internal policy on [topic]. Build me a one-page summary for new employees in their first week. Format: - The 3 rules nobody is allowed to break. - The 3 grey-area situations where they should call legal. - The 5-question self-check they run before sending external communications. - The contact-and-escalation tree, in plain English. - One real (anonymised) example of how this policy was used in a recent decision. Tone: clear, not legalistic. Read it out loud test: an engineer in a hurry should not zone out. Policy: [paste internal policy]

I am about to start research on the question below. Before I touch Westlaw, frame the issue. Output: - The legal question, restated as a doctrinal question (elements, burden, remedy). - The jurisdictions I need to check, ranked by relevance. - The 4 doctrines or causes of action I should screen first. - The leading commentary or treatise sections likely to be on point. - The 3 search strings I should run, with synonyms and field operators. - The 2 questions I cannot answer from research alone (factual, strategic, ethical). Do not cite cases. Frame the search. Question: [describe the question and the client's situation]

My company is making the decision below. I need a defensible risk-tier map for the General Counsel before tomorrow. For each identified risk: - Tier (1 = bet-the-company, 2 = material, 3 = manageable, 4 = procedural). - Likelihood, impact, time-to-detection. - The mitigating control that reduces it by one tier. - The single piece of evidence we should retain to defend the decision later. End with: the one risk that, if surfaced by a regulator in 18 months, we would not be able to explain. Decision: [describe the decision being made]

I am about to negotiate [deal type] with [counterparty]. Below is the term sheet and what I know about the other side. Build me: - The 5 terms where I have leverage and how to use it. - The 5 terms where they have leverage and how to defuse it. - 3 redlines: the issues we walk away from, in plain language for my CEO. - 3 trades: items I will give up early to bank credibility. - The 2 phrases the other side will use that signal "we are at our real position". - One sentence I open the call with that reframes the negotiation. Term sheet: [paste] Counterparty intel: [paste]

Below is the compliance framework we are subject to and the current state of our internal controls. Map each requirement to one of: - COVERED · with the control name and the evidence we would show in audit. - PARTIAL · with the gap described in one sentence. - NOT COVERED · with the smallest credible first step we could take in 30 days. - NOT APPLICABLE · with the reason. End with the 3 highest-priority gaps to close before the next audit window, with rationale. Mark anything outside your knowledge with [VERIFY]. Framework: [paste regulatory framework] Current controls: [paste internal controls]

The note below is fully de-identified (no names, dates of birth, MRN, addresses, or specific dates). Summarise for handoff: 1. One-line problem statement. 2. Active issues, in priority order. 3. Pertinent positives and pertinent negatives from the most recent visit. 4. Open questions that remain unresolved. 5. The follow-up tasks I am responsible for before the next visit. 6. The single piece of information that would change management if it came back tomorrow. Do not generate diagnostic conclusions. Reflect what is in the note. Note: [paste de-identified note]

Rewrite the message below for the patient described. Patient profile: [age range, health literacy, language, any sensitivities]. Rules: - Sixth-grade reading level by default. - Lead with what they need to do, not what we found. - One key fact per sentence. No abbreviations. - Address one likely worry they will have after reading this. - Close with the next concrete step (call, schedule, watch for, when to seek urgent care). - If anything in the original is uncertain, mark [VERIFY] before sending. Original message: [paste]

I have [n] abstracts pasted below from a literature search on [topic]. Sort them into: - Directly relevant to my clinical question. - Background or methodology only. - Off-topic, exclude. For each in the relevant pile, give: - Study design in one phrase. - Population (size, setting, key inclusion criteria). - Primary outcome and direction of effect. - One sentence on internal validity (the obvious limitation). - One sentence on external validity (does it apply to my patient). Do not generate citations or DOIs. Use only what is pasted. Mark [VERIFY] for any claim that I should pull the full text on before relying. Abstracts: [paste]

For the de-identified presentation below, brainstorm a differential. Output: - Top 5 working diagnoses, ordered by clinical likelihood for this presentation. - Top 3 "do-not-miss" diagnoses, even if uncommon. - For each diagnosis: the one finding that most supports it, the one finding that most argues against it, and the next single test that meaningfully changes the post-test probability. - The two cognitive biases I am most likely to fall into here. This is a brainstorm, not a recommendation. Final clinical decisions remain mine after examination, history, and verification. Presentation: [paste de-identified case]

Write a one-page patient education leaflet on [condition or procedure]. Sections: - What it is, in three short paragraphs. - What to expect (sensations, timeline, common variations). - What to do at home (with an explicit "do not" list). - When to call us. When to go to the emergency department. The wording must be unambiguous. - Frequently asked questions: 5 questions patients actually ask, answered in 2-3 sentences each. Reading level: 6th grade. Tone: calm, specific. No jargon without parenthetical translation. Mark anything that should be checked against our local protocol with [VERIFY-LOCAL].

Draft a referral letter to [specialty] based on the de-identified summary below. Structure: - One-line reason for referral. - Concise history with the relevant timeline only. - Pertinent exam, labs, imaging. - The specific clinical question I want answered. - What I have already trialled and the response. - Urgency and the patient's preferred timing. Tone: respectful peer-to-peer. No padding. The receiving clinician should understand the question by the end of paragraph one. De-identified summary: [paste]

Build a pre-op consultation brief for [planned procedure] for the de-identified patient below. Output: - Risk-stratification summary in 5 lines. - Conditions or medications that require optimisation before the OR. - The 3 questions I should ask the patient face-to-face that the chart will not answer. - Anaesthesia considerations to flag. - The realistic best-case and worst-case post-op trajectories I should set expectations around. - The shared-decision conversation script I will open with. Mark anything that depends on local protocol or guideline updates with [VERIFY-LOCAL]. De-identified summary: [paste]

Below are notes from this month's practice operations review. Turn them into a memo for the partner meeting. Cover: - The 3 numbers that moved most (good or bad), and the most likely cause. - The 1 patient-experience issue that, if unaddressed, becomes a complaint or review next quarter. - The 1 staffing or scheduling change that would unlock the most clinical capacity. - The 1 compliance or documentation risk surfaced this month. - The decision I am asking the partners to make at the meeting. Read-it-out-loud test: any sentence that feels like padding, cut. Notes: [paste]

I have an upcoming exam or CME on [topic, with sub-areas listed]. I have [n] hours per week for [n] weeks. Build me a study plan: - Week-by-week schedule with high-yield topics first. - The 5 conditions or concepts most likely to appear, with rationale. - A spaced-repetition flashcard list of the 25 most testable facts (no obscure trivia). - 10 self-test questions in the style of the exam, with answers and the one-line teaching point each. - The single trap question students get wrong every cycle. Reference common, current authoritative sources by name only. Do not fabricate citations. Mark [VERIFY-CURRENT-EDITION] for any guideline reference.

A patient is requesting a second opinion on the case below. I want to brief the receiving clinician fairly and prepare the patient. Output: - A neutral one-paragraph case framing for the receiving clinician (no leading language). - The 3 questions the patient most wants answered, in their words. - The 2 reasonable alternative paths from here, with the pros and cons of each. - The 1 question I would ask if I were the second-opinion clinician. - The script I use with the patient to set expectations about possible disagreement. De-identified summary: [paste]

I am about to walk into a meeting with this deck. I have 10 minutes to prep. Strip it for me: - The actual recommendation, in one sentence (cut the soft language). - The 3 numbers that, if wrong, change the recommendation. - The 2 assumptions buried in the analysis that nobody named on a slide. - The decision being asked of me, in the meeting today. - The 3 questions I should ask in the room that will surface the strongest version of this argument. Deck content: [paste deck text or notes]

Below is the pre-read for the upcoming board meeting. Generate the 10 sharpest questions a director with my mandate would ask, ranked by importance. For each: - The question itself, in one line. - The two-line context for why it matters now. - The form of answer that would close the question (a number, a deadline, a person, a decision). Then give me: - The 3 topics that are not in the pre-read but should be. - The 1 question I should NOT ask in this room, and why. Pre-read: [paste]

For the strategic move below, build me three 12-month scenarios. Format each: - Name (one phrase). - The triggering condition (what has to be true in the world). - Probability (low/med/high) and the leading indicator I would see by month 3. - The financial and operational shape of this scenario. - The single decision I have to make today to keep this scenario open. - The single irreversible commitment I would regret. Then: the one question that would falsify the recommended path fastest. Move: [describe the strategic move under consideration]

Frame this decision the way a thoughtful operator would, not the way the deck frames it. Output: - What is actually being decided (often narrower than the framing suggests). - The reversible path and the irreversible path. - The information I do not have but could get cheaply this week. - The information I will not have in time, and what to do about that. - The "no decision" outcome (because not deciding is also a decision). - The smallest test that would change my mind. Decision context: [paste]

I am drowning in meeting requests. Below are five recent ones. For each, give me: - A 3-line script that declines politely without burning the relationship. - An alternative that gives the requester what they actually need (often a doc, a 5-min call, a delegate). - The version I send if the requester is more senior than me. - A flag if this is one I should actually take, with the reason. Tone: warm, brief, no apologies, no over-explaining. Requests: [paste]

I have a 1:1 today with [name, role, tenure]. Below are the last three weeks of context (their updates, my notes, anything notable). Output: - 3 questions that surface what they are not saying out loud. - 2 questions that test whether they are growing into the next role. - 1 question that gives them permission to ask for help they have been avoiding. - The single piece of recognition I should land in the first 5 minutes. - The conversation I have been postponing that I should not postpone again. Notes: [paste]

Turn the raw numbers and notes below into a monthly investor update. Structure: - One-line headline (good month, hard month, rebuilding month). - The 3 metrics that matter most, with month-over-month and the cause. - Wins, with specifics. Losses, with specifics. Both calibrated for credibility. - The biggest risk on the next 90 days and what we are doing about it. - The 1 ask: introductions, hires, advice. Make it actionable. Tone: candid, no sandbagging, no spin. Investors trust founders who name the loss before the win. Raw notes: [paste]

Something just went wrong. Below is what we know and what we do not yet know. Draft three messages, escalating in audience: 1. The internal Slack to the team (within the hour). 2. The note to affected customers (within the day, only after legal and security have reviewed). 3. The external statement, if and when one is needed. In each: state what happened, what we are doing, what we do not yet know, when we will update next, and how affected parties can reach us. Avoid PR-speak, hedging, and false reassurance. Mark anything that requires legal review with [LEGAL-REVIEW]. What we know: [paste]

Below is our current org chart, the goals for the next 12 months, and the friction points we keep hitting. Diagnose: - The 2 places where reporting lines are crossing decision rights. - The 2 places where we have under-invested in management capacity. - The 1 layer that has stopped adding value and now slows the org down. - The single role we should hire next, and the single role we should design out. - The org change I would NOT recommend right now, even if it looks logical, and why. Org chart and goals: [paste]

Below is the long list of things our org is considering for next quarter. Filter ruthlessly: - The 3 priorities that, if we did only those, would make the quarter a clear win. - The 5 items that look strategic but are actually optional this quarter. - The 2 items we should kill outright, with the line I will use to defend killing them. - The 1 priority nobody is championing that should be on the list. - The 1 risk of this filter being wrong, and the leading indicator I will watch. Long list: [paste]

Below is a long-form piece I made (essay, transcript, video script, podcast). Repurpose it into: - 1 LinkedIn post (200 words, opens with the most quotable line). - 1 X/Twitter thread (8 to 12 posts, ends with a CTA). - 1 short-form video script (45 seconds, hook in the first 3 seconds). - 1 newsletter intro paragraph that frames "why I made this". - 3 sticky pull quotes for image cards. Stay in my voice. Do not insert generic platform clichés. Mark any factual claim that came from the original piece with a quote indicator so I can verify before posting. Original piece: [paste]

Draft a reply to the customer message below. Rules: - Acknowledge what they actually said, not what is convenient. - If we made a mistake, name it cleanly. No "we are sorry you feel this way". - Tell them what we are doing, what they need to do, and when we will follow up. - Match their tone one notch warmer. - End with a single line that is human, not corporate. Then give me: - The most likely follow-up they will send and how I should answer it. - Whether this case should be escalated and why. Customer message: [paste]

Below is the financial state of my one-person business: revenue by month for the last 12 months, expenses by category, runway assumptions. Tell me, in plain English: - The story this data tells. Not the spreadsheet, the story. - The 1 number that, if I only watched one, would tell me whether the business is healthy. - The 2 expense lines that are quietly compounding. - The realistic income I should pay myself this quarter, given the runway and risk. - The 3 financial decisions I should make this week. Mark any calculation I should sanity-check with [VERIFY]. Numbers: [paste]

I want to outline a [course / cohort / product] on [topic] for [audience]. Output: - The transformation: where the student is on day one, where they are on day [end]. State both as observable behaviours, not feelings. - The 5 modules that earn that transformation. - For each module: the single skill mastered, the one artefact the student walks away with, the one question they will probably ask in office hours. - The 1 module I should cut even though it is tempting to include. - The 1 module everyone in this category leaves out that I should include. Audience profile: [paste]

Run me through a weekly review. Below are this week's notes, calendar, and energy log. Ask me, one at a time, just these 5 questions. Wait for my answer before asking the next. 1. What did I ship this week that I will still be proud of in 6 months? 2. What did I work on that I should have refused, and who said yes for me? 3. Where did I lose energy, and what was the trigger? 4. What is the one task next week that, if done, makes the rest easier? 5. What is the one thing I will say no to next week, on the record, right now? After question 5, summarise my answers in 6 lines and surface the one pattern you see this week. This week's input: [paste]

Below are 5 to 10 transcripts from interviews with people in my target niche. Synthesise: - The 3 phrases they all use to describe the problem (verbatim). - The 3 phrases they use to describe the dream outcome. - The "before" and "after" identity, in their words. - The 3 objections they raise about existing solutions. - The 3 places they go when they are looking for help. - The 1 thing they say in passing that nobody is currently building for. Pull-quote anything striking with the interview number for traceability. Transcripts: [paste]

I want to test a price change on [product]. Current price: [x]. Proposed new price: [y]. My monthly traffic is [n] visits and current conversion is [c]%. Design the experiment: - What I am actually trying to learn (price elasticity, anchor strength, segment willingness). - The smallest experiment that produces a believable answer. - The minimum sample size given my traffic. Show the back-of-envelope. - What I will change in the offer ALONGSIDE the price change to keep value perceived. - The 2 outcomes I would consider a successful test. - The 1 outcome that means I should kill the test early. Mark any statistical assumption I should sanity-check with [VERIFY].

Below is the email I am about to send. Generate 12 subject lines, organised by approach: - 3 curiosity gap (no clickbait). - 3 direct value. - 3 specific number / specific noun. - 3 first-person small confession. For each, also give: - The preview text it should pair with (45 characters max). - Who in my list it would resonate with most. Then rank the top 3 for THIS email. Tell me which one I should test first and which one is safe. Email body: [paste]

Below are the 5 most common objections I get on [product]. For each: - What the prospect actually means (the objection beneath the words). - The 2-line reframe that addresses the real concern, in my voice. - The proof point I bring in (case study, data, guarantee). - The follow-up question that returns them to their dream outcome. - The honest version where the answer is "you are right, this is not for you" and how to say it cleanly. Stay grounded. Pressure tactics break the relationship faster than any lost sale. Objections: [paste]

Below is everything I shipped, abandoned, learned, and earned in the last 12 months. Run me a retrospective. Output: - The 3 wins I underrate. Tell me why I underrate them. - The 1 win I overrate. Tell me why. - The 2 abandoned bets that I should restart, and the 2 I should let stay buried. - The single skill I built this year that compounds. - The single skill I avoided building that, if I had, would have shifted the year. - The one-line story I tell myself about this year, and the one-line story I should tell instead. Inputs: [paste your year]