These prompts emphasize careful reading, explicit evidence, and thoughtful revision. Remove confidential information before sharing documents, and independently verify important conclusions.
1. Analyze a Long Document
Analyze the document for [purpose]. First state its main argument in one paragraph. Then list key claims, evidence used, assumptions, unresolved questions, and passages that deserve closer review. Cite section names or short excerpts for every major observation. Distinguish what the document says from your interpretation. Document: [paste approved text]
2. Find Contradictions and Gaps
Review the material below as a skeptical but fair editor. Identify contradictions, ambiguous terms, missing evidence, unsupported conclusions, and important perspectives not considered. Rank findings by their effect on the final conclusion. Do not invent missing facts. Material: [text]
3. Create an Executive Summary
Write an executive summary of [document] for [audience]. Include the decision required, essential context, strongest evidence, major risks, open questions, and recommended next steps. Keep it under [length]. Preserve uncertainty and avoid overstating the source.
4. Improve an Argument
Act as a constructive debate coach. Analyze my argument below. Present the strongest version of it, then the strongest reasonable counterargument. Identify weak evidence and hidden assumptions. Suggest how I can improve the reasoning without changing my core position. Argument: [text]
5. Turn Notes Into a Useful Report
Organize these rough notes into a report for [audience]. Use only information present in the notes. Separate facts, opinions, decisions, action items, owners, and unresolved questions. Mark unclear or missing details instead of guessing. Notes: [notes]
6. Design a Fair Policy
Help draft a policy for [situation]. Identify affected groups, intended outcomes, possible unintended consequences, exceptions, enforcement questions, and an appeal process. Provide a plain-language draft and a checklist for human/legal review. Do not present this as legal advice.
7. Review a Research Plan
Critique this research plan for whether it can answer the stated question. Review scope, definitions, evidence sources, sampling, bias, confounding factors, ethics, and limits. Suggest the smallest changes that would improve reliability. Plan: [plan]
8. Map Stakeholder Perspectives
For the decision [decision], map the likely perspectives of [stakeholders]. For each, list goals, concerns, incentives, evidence they may value, and questions to ask them. Avoid stereotypes and label uncertain assumptions.
9. Edit While Preserving Voice
Edit the draft for clarity, flow, and precision while preserving the author's voice. Audience: [audience]. Highlight major changes and explain why they help. Do not add facts or change the position. Draft: [text]
10. Build a Scenario Plan
Create three plausible scenarios for [issue] over [time period]: expected, challenging, and unexpectedly positive. For each, state assumptions, early signals, implications, and no-regret actions. Do not assign invented probabilities.
11. Build a Traceable Evidence Matrix
Create an evidence matrix for the question [question] using only the materials below. Use columns for claim, supporting evidence, contradicting evidence, source location, source limitations, confidence, and unanswered questions. Do not merge conflicting claims or invent a conclusion. Materials: [approved text]
12. Review a Contract in Plain Language
Explain this contract section in plain language for a non-lawyer. Identify obligations, deadlines, costs, termination conditions, ambiguous wording, and questions to raise with qualified legal counsel. Quote the relevant clause for every observation. Do not provide legal advice or claim the clause is enforceable. Text: [approved clause]
13. Conduct a Fairness Pre-Review
Review this proposed policy or automated decision process for potential fairness risks. Identify affected groups, proxy variables, unequal error impacts, accessibility barriers, missing appeal routes, and evidence needed before deployment. Avoid assuming a group is affected without evidence. Process: [description]
14. Create a Red-Team Critique
Act as a constructive red team for [plan/product]. Identify credible ways it could fail, be misunderstood, be misused, or create unintended consequences. Separate high-confidence issues from speculative ones. For each major risk, suggest a test, early warning signal, and mitigation owner.
15. Compare Two Documents Without Losing Nuance
Compare document A and document B for [purpose]. Create a structured comparison of definitions, scope, evidence, recommendations, obligations, omissions, and unresolved disagreements. Cite section names or excerpts. Do not treat different wording as a substantive disagreement unless the meaning changes. Documents: [A] [B]
16. Build a Requirements Traceability Review
Review the approved requirements and implementation notes for [project]. Build a traceability table linking each requirement to supporting evidence, implementation location, test evidence, owner, and unresolved gap. Identify requirements that are ambiguous, untested, contradicted, or not represented in the implementation. Do not mark an item complete without explicit evidence. Materials: [requirements and approved notes]
17. Prepare a Neutral Incident Timeline
Using only the approved incident records below, create a neutral chronological timeline. Separate confirmed events, reported observations, decisions, assumptions, and unknowns. For every entry, cite its source and timestamp. Highlight conflicting accounts and missing evidence without assigning blame. Records: [sanitized logs, notes, and messages]
Privacy: Remove credentials, personal identifiers, and confidential customer information before sharing records.
18. Evaluate Whether a Summary Preserves the Source
Compare this summary with its source document. Identify omitted qualifications, changed meaning, unsupported additions, lost uncertainty, and statements that need a citation. Create a correction table with summary passage, source location, issue, and proposed revision. Do not rewrite the entire summary until the discrepancies are reviewed. Source: [approved text] Summary: [summary]
Responsible Use
When analyzing sensitive documents, confirm the AI service is approved for that information. Treat summaries as navigation aids, not substitutes for reading critical source material.