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]
19. Analyze the Impact of a Proposed Change
Analyze the proposed change below before implementation. Identify affected workflows, people, systems, policies, dependencies, training needs, accessibility considerations, transition risks, and measures of success. Separate direct evidence from assumptions and list the stakeholders who should validate each assumption. Proposal: [approved description]
20. Create a Consistent Taxonomy From Unstructured Terms
Using only the approved term list and definitions below, propose a practical taxonomy for [purpose]. Group related terms, define parent-child relationships, flag duplicates and ambiguous labels, preserve meaningful distinctions, and list terms that require a subject-matter decision. Include naming rules and a process for future additions. Do not silently merge terms with different meanings. Terms: [list]
21. Audit Meeting Minutes Against the Source Record
Compare these draft meeting minutes with the approved source record. Check whether decisions, action items, owners, deadlines, disagreements, and unresolved questions are represented accurately. Identify omissions, unsupported additions, and wording that changes meaning. Cite the source location for every correction. Source record: [sanitized transcript or notes] Draft minutes: [draft]
22. Review a Process for Automation Readiness
Assess whether this process is ready for automation. Examine process stability, input quality, rule clarity, exception frequency, judgment requirements, privacy, security, ownership, failure consequences, and existing performance data. Separate problems automation could reduce from problems it could amplify. Recommend prerequisites and a small pilot, or explain why automation should not proceed. Process: [approved description]
23. Create a Control-to-Evidence Matrix
Using the approved control requirements and evidence below, create a control-to-evidence matrix. For each control, state its purpose, owner, implementation evidence, operating evidence, review frequency, exceptions, and unresolved gap. Flag evidence that is outdated, indirect, contradictory, or insufficient. Do not claim a control is effective without operating evidence. Materials: [approved controls and evidence]
24. Analyze a Failed Handoff
Analyze this failed handoff between [teams or roles] using only the sanitized records provided. Build a timeline, identify unclear ownership, missing information, mismatched expectations, delayed signals, and process conditions that contributed. Separate systemic factors from individual actions, avoid assigning motives, and propose changes with an owner and a way to test effectiveness. Records: [sanitized records]
25. Extract Obligations From Policy Text
Using only the approved policy text below, extract operational obligations for [team or process]. For each obligation, quote the source passage, identify owner if stated, deadline or trigger, evidence required, exception language, and open interpretation questions. Do not provide legal advice or infer obligations not present in the text. Policy text: [approved text]
26. Compare Versions of a Procedure
Compare procedure version A and version B for [process]. Identify additions, removals, changed responsibilities, changed thresholds, changed evidence requirements, ambiguous wording, and transition risks. Create a table with source section references and practical impact. Do not assume the newer version is better. Versions: [A] [B]
27. Review a Vendor Response for Evidence Quality
Review this vendor response to our questions about [product or service]. Separate direct answers, vague assurances, missing evidence, contractual dependencies, technical limitations, data-handling claims, and follow-up questions. Quote the vendor's wording for every concern. Do not treat marketing language as evidence. Response: [vendor text]
28. Compare Two Policy Drafts for Practical Impact
Compare these two policy drafts for [organization or workflow]. Identify substantive differences, affected people, operational burden, ambiguity, enforcement challenges, privacy or fairness concerns, and implementation steps. Quote only short relevant excerpts, avoid legal conclusions, and end with questions for a qualified reviewer. Draft A: [text]. Draft B: [text].
29. Create an Evidence-Based Recommendation Memo
Write a recommendation memo about [decision] using only the evidence below. Include context, options considered, decision criteria, evidence summary, uncertainties, risks, reversible and irreversible consequences, recommended next step, and what would change the recommendation. Do not add facts not present in the evidence. Evidence: [sanitized evidence]
30. Stress-Test a Customer Communication
Stress-test this customer communication before sending. Check whether it is clear, accurate, respectful, specific about next steps, realistic about timelines, and careful with promises. Identify phrases that could create false expectations, sound dismissive, expose private information, or increase support load. Then provide a revised version and a short internal note explaining the changes. Message: [draft]
31. Review a Procurement Shortlist for Hidden Lock-In
Review this procurement shortlist for [software, vendor, or service]. Identify hidden lock-in, migration difficulty, data export limits, support risks, security review gaps, pricing assumptions, implementation burden, cancellation terms, and questions to ask before approval. Use only the supplied notes and clearly mark anything that needs contract or legal review. Shortlist: [sanitized notes]
32. Turn a Complaint Pattern Into a Corrective Action Plan
Analyze these anonymized complaints about [product/service/process]. Group recurring issues, identify likely root causes, separate evidence from assumptions, estimate customer impact qualitatively, and propose corrective actions with owners, validation checks, and communication needs. Do not invent statistics or blame individuals. Complaints: [paste anonymized records]
33. Summarize Stakeholder Positions Without Flattening Disagreement
Summarize stakeholder positions on [decision or project] from these notes. For each stakeholder group, capture goals, concerns, evidence cited, non-negotiables, open questions, and areas of agreement. Preserve meaningful disagreement instead of forcing consensus. End with the next decision needed and what evidence would make it easier. Notes: [sanitized notes]
34. Create a Balanced Incident Debrief
Create an incident debrief for [incident type] using the timeline and notes below. Separate confirmed facts, unknowns, contributing factors, immediate fixes, systemic fixes, customer or user impact, communication gaps, and follow-up owners. Avoid blame, speculation, and unsupported root causes. Timeline and notes: [sanitized notes]
35. Synthesize Research Without Overstating Certainty
Synthesize the research notes below about [topic]. Group findings by theme, cite the supporting note for each theme, identify contradictions, rate confidence qualitatively, and list what remains unknown. Do not calculate percentages unless they are provided, and do not turn weak evidence into a strong recommendation. Notes: [research notes]
36. Review a Risk Register for Missing Controls
Review this risk register for [project or process]. Identify vague risks, missing causes, weak controls, unclear owners, absent trigger metrics, missing review dates, and risks that should be split or merged. Suggest precise rewrites and practical control checks. Do not invent acceptance decisions or compliance status. Register: [text]
37. Audit a Board or Leadership Update for Evidence
Review this leadership update about [project or metric]. Identify claims that need evidence, vague progress language, missing risks, unclear decisions requested, unsupported confidence, and statements that could be misread. Create a revision table with original wording, concern, evidence needed, and safer wording. Update: [draft]
38. Build a Source-Limited Market Landscape
Using only the approved sources below, build a market landscape for [category]. Separate vendor claims, customer needs, pricing signals, adoption barriers, regulatory or policy concerns, and unresolved questions. Cite the source for every point and clearly state what the sources do not prove. Sources: [approved excerpts or links]
39. Review a Governance Process for Accountability Gaps
Review this governance process for [system, content workflow, or AI use case]. Identify decision owners, approval evidence, review cadence, exception path, appeal route, monitoring signals, documentation gaps, and areas where accountability is unclear. Do not claim compliance; produce questions and practical fixes for the responsible team. Process: [description]
40. Review an AI Use Case for Human Oversight
Review this proposed AI use case for [organization/workflow]. Identify where human judgment is required, what evidence the human reviewer needs, failure modes, appeal or correction routes, monitoring signals, and records to keep. Separate practical governance recommendations from legal or compliance conclusions. Use case: [description]
41. Convert Interview Notes Into Evidence Themes
Analyze these anonymized interview notes about [topic]. Group evidence into themes, cite short supporting excerpts, preserve contradictory views, identify missing participant types, and list decisions the evidence can and cannot support. Do not estimate prevalence unless counts are provided. Notes: [notes]
42. Check a Policy FAQ for Misleading Simplification
Review this policy FAQ for [audience]. Identify answers that oversimplify, omit exceptions, sound like legal advice, hide uncertainty, or conflict with the source policy. Create a correction table with FAQ item, issue, safer wording, and source section to verify. FAQ and source notes: [text]
43. Review a Financial Control Narrative for Gaps
Review this financial control narrative for [process]. Identify unclear control owner, trigger, evidence, frequency, exception handling, system dependency, segregation-of-duties concern, and missing review step. Do not conclude whether the control is compliant or effective; create questions for the responsible reviewer. Narrative: [approved text]
44. Compare Budget Scenarios With Clear Assumptions
Compare these budget scenarios for [project/team]. Build a table of assumptions, fixed costs, variable costs, dependencies, risks, reversible decisions, and unknowns. Highlight where a scenario depends on unverified growth, savings, or timing. Do not recommend a final decision unless decision criteria are supplied. Scenarios: [text]
45. Audit a Risk Committee Update for Actionability
Review this risk committee update. Identify vague risks, missing owners, weak mitigation language, absent dates, unclear escalation thresholds, unsupported confidence, and decisions needed. Rewrite the update into concise, evidence-aware bullets while preserving uncertainty and avoiding legal or compliance conclusions. Draft: [text]
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.