All prompts tested on ChatGPT (GPT-4o) as of April 2026. Most also work on Claude Sonnet 4 with minor modifications — Claude responds especially well to XML tags like <task> and <context>.
Landing page headline variants
Copywriting
You are a conversion copywriter who specializes in SaaS landing pages. Your headlines consistently lift click-through rates by focusing on outcomes, not features.
Task: Write 10 headline variants for the following product's landing page hero section.
Product: [PRODUCT NAME]
Core benefit: [WHAT IT DOES FOR THE CUSTOMER]
Target customer: [WHO THEY ARE — job title, company type, or pain point]
Current headline: [EXISTING HEADLINE OR "none"]
For each variant, include:
- The headline (max 10 words)
- A 1-sentence subheadline that reinforces it
- The conversion angle it uses (outcome, curiosity, social proof, pain, or urgency)
Do not repeat the same angle twice in a row.
What it does: Produces 10 distinct headline + subheadline pairs with explicit conversion angle tagging, ready for A/B testing.
Why it works: The 10-word constraint forces clarity. Requiring 10 variants with named angles prevents ChatGPT from delivering minor rewrites of the same idea. The current headline field prevents generating something you already tried.
Email nurture sequence
Email
You are a B2B email marketer. You write sequences that convert leads who are "interested but not ready" into buyers through education and trust-building — not urgency pressure.
Task: Write a 5-email nurture sequence for [PRODUCT/SERVICE].
Context:
- Lead source: [WHERE THEY CAME FROM — e.g., "downloaded our ROI calculator"]
- Buyer persona: [JOB TITLE AND COMPANY TYPE]
- Core pain they have: [MAIN PROBLEM]
- Primary objection to buying: [BIGGEST HESITATION]
- Sales cycle length: [HOW LONG DEALS TYPICALLY TAKE]
For each email:
1. Subject line (with A/B variant)
2. Preview text (max 90 chars)
3. Email body (150–200 words)
4. One clear CTA with button text
Emails 1–2 are pure education. Email 3 introduces social proof. Emails 4–5 move toward a soft close.
Do not open any email with "I hope this email finds you well" or similar filler.
What it does: Generates a complete 5-email sequence with subject lines, preview text, body, and CTA — ready for upload to any email platform.
Why it works: The explicit arc (education → social proof → soft close) prevents ChatGPT from front-loading the sell. The objection field ensures emails address real hesitations, not generic ones. The opener constraint is the single most valuable line — it eliminates the most cringe-inducing AI email failure.
Ad copy for paid social
Paid Ads
You are a paid social copywriter. You write high-converting ad copy for Meta and LinkedIn. Your ads stop the scroll by opening with the audience's specific pain or desire — not the brand's product.
Task: Write 5 ad variations for [PRODUCT/SERVICE].
Ad details:
- Platform: [META / LINKEDIN / BOTH]
- Campaign objective: [AWARENESS / TRAFFIC / CONVERSION]
- Target audience: [DESCRIBE THEM]
- Main pain point or desire: [WHAT KEEPS THEM UP AT NIGHT OR WHAT THEY WANT]
- Offer or hook: [DISCOUNT, FREE TRIAL, GUIDE, ETC.]
For each variation include:
- Primary text (max 125 chars for Meta, 150 for LinkedIn)
- Headline (max 40 chars)
- Description (max 30 chars)
- Creative direction note (describe the visual this copy pairs with)
Label each by angle: Pain, Desire, Social Proof, Curiosity, or Direct.
What it does: Produces 5 complete ad variations with all copy fields and a creative brief — ready for trafficking.
Why it works: Character limits reflect real platform constraints, not guidelines — ChatGPT respects them when they're specific. The angle labels make it easy to balance your ad set. The creative direction note eliminates the designer briefing step.
Product positioning statement
Positioning
You are a B2B product marketer with deep expertise in Geoffrey Moore's positioning framework.
Task: Write a positioning statement for [PRODUCT/SERVICE] using the "For [target customer] who [has this problem], [product name] is a [category] that [key benefit]. Unlike [primary alternative], we [differentiator]." structure.
Then explain:
1. Why this positioning is defensible against [MAIN COMPETITOR]
2. What objection this positioning will surface most often from buyers
3. One messaging test you would run to validate this positioning in market
Product details:
- What it does: [FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]
- Target customer: [PERSONA]
- Current category perception: [HOW CUSTOMERS THINK OF IT TODAY]
- Unfair advantage: [WHAT YOU DO THAT COMPETITORS CANNOT EASILY COPY]
What it does: Produces a structured positioning statement plus competitive analysis and a validation test — a mini positioning workshop in one prompt.
Why it works: The Moore framework forces discipline. Asking for the main objection the positioning surfaces is counter-intuitive but critical — it surfaces blind spots before you go to market.
Blog post outline with SEO intent
Content
You are a content strategist and SEO specialist. You create blog outlines that rank for transactional and informational keywords by matching search intent precisely.
Task: Create a detailed blog post outline for the following target keyword.
Target keyword: [KEYWORD]
Search intent: [INFORMATIONAL / TRANSACTIONAL / COMPARISON]
Target reader: [WHO IS SEARCHING THIS AND WHY]
Word count target: [1500 / 2500 / 4000+]
Competitors ranking for this keyword: [LIST 2–3 COMPETING ARTICLES IF KNOWN]
Output:
- SEO title (max 60 chars, keyword in first 3 words)
- Meta description (max 155 chars)
- H1 (can differ from title)
- Full H2/H3 outline with 2-sentence description of what each section covers
- Internal linking opportunities (3 suggestions)
- Suggested featured snippet target (identify the section most likely to rank as a snippet)
What it does: Produces a complete, publication-ready blog outline with all SEO elements included — ready for a writer or to generate section by section.
Why it works: Separating the SEO title from the H1 is a real-world SEO practice that ChatGPT rarely does without instruction. The featured snippet targeting section gives you a concrete ranking opportunity in every piece.
Case study narrative
Content
You are a B2B content writer who specializes in customer case studies. You write stories that make the customer the hero, not the vendor.
Task: Write a customer case study narrative based on the following information.
Customer: [COMPANY NAME AND INDUSTRY]
Challenge they faced: [THE PROBLEM BEFORE USING YOUR PRODUCT]
Solution: [HOW THEY USED YOUR PRODUCT]
Results: [SPECIFIC METRICS — e.g., "reduced churn by 22%" or "saved 14 hours/week"]
Quote available: [YES — "[QUOTE]" / NO]
Format:
- Title (make the result the headline)
- 2-sentence executive summary
- Challenge section (150 words)
- Solution section (150 words)
- Results section (bulleted metrics + 1 paragraph narrative)
- Customer quote pull (if provided)
- Next steps CTA
Tone: Professional but human. Write as if this will appear on a B2B company's website.
What it does: Generates a complete, formatted case study narrative ready for web publishing or PDF design.
Why it works: "Make the customer the hero" prevents the vendor-centric framing that makes most case studies ineffective. The results-first title instruction consistently produces stronger headlines than letting ChatGPT choose.
Social media content calendar
Social
You are a B2B social media strategist. You create content calendars that build thought leadership and drive followers to convert — not just collect likes.
Task: Create a 2-week LinkedIn content calendar for [COMPANY/PERSONAL BRAND].
Context:
- Industry: [INDUSTRY]
- Target audience: [WHO FOLLOWS THE ACCOUNT]
- Business goal: [WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DRIVE — e.g., "demo bookings" or "newsletter signups"]
- Content pillars: [3–4 TOPICS YOU WANT TO OWN]
- Posting frequency: [POSTS PER WEEK]
For each post provide:
- Day and content type (Original thought, Data insight, Behind the scenes, How-to, or Repurpose)
- Hook (first line — this is what determines whether people stop scrolling)
- Post body (100–200 words)
- CTA
- Hashtags (max 5, relevant not generic)
Follow the 4:1 ratio: 4 value posts for every 1 promotional post.
What it does: Produces a full two-week LinkedIn calendar with ready-to-post copy for every slot.
Why it works: The 4:1 ratio constraint prevents ChatGPT from making every post a product pitch. Naming the hook as the stopping mechanism — rather than just "first line" — consistently produces stronger openers.
Cold email — first touch
Outreach
You are a B2B sales development rep with a 38% reply rate on cold outreach. Your emails are short, specific, and always relevant to the prospect — never generic.
Task: Write a cold email to [PROSPECT NAME / TITLE] at [COMPANY].
Context:
- What they likely care about: [PAIN POINT OR GOAL BASED ON THEIR ROLE]
- Trigger or research hook: [RECENT NEWS, LINKEDIN POST, JOB POSTING, FUNDING ROUND, ETC.]
- What you offer: [ONE SENTENCE]
- Desired outcome of this email: [REPLY / CALL / DEMO BOOKING]
Constraints:
- Max 100 words in body
- Do not mention features — only the outcome the prospect gets
- Do not use "I wanted to reach out" or "hope you're doing well"
- Do not pitch in the first email — ask a question or make an observation that invites a reply
- End with a low-friction ask (not "book a 30-min demo")
What it does: Generates a short, specific cold email optimized for reply rate rather than send volume.
Why it works: The trigger/hook field forces personalization that actually matters. The constraint against pitching in the first email is the most important — it aligns with how high-reply-rate cold outreach actually works. The low-friction ask instruction prevents the overreach that kills most cold sequences.
Follow-up sequence (3 emails)
Follow-up
You are a B2B sales rep. I sent an initial cold email to a prospect and received no reply. Write a 3-email follow-up sequence that adds value with each touch rather than just bumping the original message.
Initial email context: [PASTE YOUR ORIGINAL EMAIL OR DESCRIBE THE ASK]
Follow-up rules:
- Email 1 (Day 5): Add one new piece of value — a relevant stat, insight, or resource. Reference the original without repeating it.
- Email 2 (Day 12): Take a different angle entirely — address the most likely reason they haven't replied without being passive-aggressive.
- Email 3 (Day 21): The "break-up" email. Give them an easy out, but leave the door open. Be human and brief.
Each email: Subject line + 75-word max body + CTA.
Never use: "Just following up," "Circling back," "Bumping this to the top."
What it does: Generates a 3-email follow-up sequence with distinct angles at each touch — ready to load into any sales engagement platform.
Why it works: The day-spacing and explicit strategy for each email prevents the lazy "just following up" pattern. The break-up email instruction produces paradoxically better reply rates — prospects often respond to closure offers they ignored to sales asks.
Objection handling script
Sales Enablement
You are a senior enterprise sales trainer with 20 years of experience coaching reps on objection handling in B2B SaaS.
Task: Write a complete objection handling script for the following objection.
Objection: "[EXACT OBJECTION AS THE PROSPECT SAID IT]"
Product/service being sold: [PRODUCT]
Stage in sales cycle: [DISCOVERY / DEMO / PROPOSAL / CLOSE]
For each objection provide:
1. Acknowledge + validate (1–2 sentences — do not argue immediately)
2. Clarifying question to understand the real objection underneath
3. Reframe (how to reposition the objection as a reason to buy)
4. Evidence response (the stat, case study, or proof point that addresses it)
5. Close or next step that comes after the objection is resolved
Also provide: The 2 most likely follow-on objections after this one is addressed, with brief responses for each.
What it does: Produces a complete objection-handling playbook for a specific objection, including the hidden objection layer and follow-on objections.
Why it works: The clarifying question step is the most underused part of objection handling — most reps jump straight to reframe. The follow-on objections section prepares reps for the real conversation that happens after the surface objection is addressed.
Sales call discovery questions
Discovery
You are a solutions consultant who runs discovery calls that consistently uncover compelling events and true buying criteria — not just feature requirements.
Task: Create a discovery question bank for the following sales situation.
Product/service: [WHAT YOU SELL]
Prospect role: [TITLE AND FUNCTION]
Company profile: [SIZE / INDUSTRY]
Known pain points in this market: [LIST 2–3]
Produce 20 discovery questions organized into 4 categories:
1. Current state (understand where they are today — 5 questions)
2. Pain and impact (quantify the problem — 5 questions)
3. Previous attempts (what they've tried and why it failed — 5 questions)
4. Decision and timeline (understand how they buy — 5 questions)
For each question: Include a 1-line note on what the ideal answer reveals about deal quality.
What it does: Produces 20 structured discovery questions with coaching notes — ready to use as a call preparation guide.
Why it works: The "previous attempts" category is often skipped but produces the richest signal about deal quality and competitive positioning. The ideal-answer notes turn a question list into a coaching document.
Proposal executive summary
Proposals
You are a B2B sales strategist. You write proposal executive summaries that make the economic buyer say "this is exactly what we need" — not "here is what the vendor sells."
Task: Write a 400-word executive summary for a proposal to [COMPANY NAME].
Context:
- Prospect's stated problem: [WHAT THEY TOLD YOU]
- Business impact of the problem: [COST, RISK, OR MISSED OPPORTUNITY — USE THEIR NUMBERS]
- Proposed solution (high level): [WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING]
- Expected outcome: [SPECIFIC RESULT WITH METRICS IF AVAILABLE]
- Decision timeline: [WHEN THEY NEED THIS SOLVED]
Format:
- Para 1: Open with their problem, not your product
- Para 2: The cost of inaction
- Para 3: Your recommended approach (solution-neutral language)
- Para 4: Expected outcomes and timeline
- Para 5: Next step
Do not include pricing, feature lists, or company background in the executive summary.
What it does: Produces a 5-paragraph executive summary in the prospect's language — designed to be read by economic buyers who skip the rest of the proposal.
Why it works: Opening with the prospect's problem (not your company intro) is the single highest-leverage change most proposals need. The explicit prohibition on pricing and feature lists keeps the exec summary focused on value — the detail sections handle the rest.
Competitive battlecard
Sales Enablement
You are a competitive intelligence analyst and sales enablement specialist. You create battlecards that help reps win against specific competitors without trash-talking or FUD.
Task: Create a competitive battlecard for use when [YOUR PRODUCT] is in a deal against [COMPETITOR].
Include:
1. Competitor's 3 strongest selling points (be honest — reps need to know what they're up against)
2. Where [YOUR PRODUCT] wins (3 differentiators with supporting evidence or proof points)
3. The 5 most common things the competitor's reps say to make prospects doubt us — and our response to each
4. Discovery questions to plant in the prospect's mind that naturally favor our strengths
5. Trap-setting moves: questions to ask early in the deal that make the competitor's weaknesses surface naturally
6. When to walk away: deal characteristics that signal the competitor will win regardless
What it does: Produces a complete competitive battlecard including honest competitive strengths, not just your product's advantages.
Why it works: Acknowledging the competitor's real strengths gives reps credibility — buyers know you're being honest. The trap-setting questions section is the highest-value output, teaching reps to shape the evaluation criteria rather than just respond to them.
Win/loss debrief analysis
Analysis
You are a revenue operations analyst specializing in win/loss analysis.
Task: Analyze the following deal notes and produce a structured win/loss debrief.
Deal outcome: [WON / LOST]
Deal size: [ARR OR DEAL VALUE]
Sales cycle length: [DAYS]
Competitor (if known): [NAME OR "unknown"]
Deal notes: [PASTE CRM NOTES, EMAIL SUMMARIES, OR CALL TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS]
Output:
1. Primary reason for [win/loss] (most important factor — 2 sentences)
2. Contributing factors (bulleted list)
3. What we could have done differently at each stage (discovery / demo / proposal / close)
4. What this win/loss tells us about our positioning against this buyer type
5. Recommended changes to sales playbook based on this deal (be specific, not generic)
6. Questions to ask in a customer interview to validate or deepen these findings
What it does: Transforms raw deal notes into a structured debrief with actionable playbook changes.
Why it works: Most win/loss reviews stop at "we won because of price" or "we lost because of timing." The per-stage breakdown and playbook change recommendations turn a retrospective into an improvement document. The customer interview questions enable you to validate findings with the actual buyer.
Response template — billing complaint
Templates
You are a customer success specialist trained in de-escalation. You write support responses that acknowledge the customer's frustration, explain the situation clearly, and resolve the issue — without being defensive or over-apologizing.
Task: Write a support response to the following billing complaint.
Customer message: [PASTE CUSTOMER'S MESSAGE]
What actually happened: [THE REAL EXPLANATION — BE HONEST]
Resolution you can offer: [REFUND / CREDIT / EXCEPTION / POLICY EXPLANATION]
Escalation path if needed: [WHO THEY CAN CONTACT NEXT]
Response format:
1. Acknowledge the frustration (1 sentence — specific, not generic)
2. Explain what happened (plain language, no jargon, no blame)
3. State what you're doing to resolve it
4. Confirm next steps and timeline
5. Close with confidence, not excessive apology
Tone: Human, direct, and accountable. Never use "per our records," "unfortunately," or "I apologize for the inconvenience."
What it does: Generates a complete, de-escalation-ready customer response for billing disputes.
Why it works: The "what actually happened" field forces you to input the real explanation — which produces a more honest, defensible response. The banned phrases eliminate the three most customer-rage-inducing support phrases.
FAQ article from support tickets
Knowledge Base
You are a technical writer specializing in customer-facing knowledge base articles.
Task: Write a help center FAQ article based on the following support ticket patterns.
Topic: [WHAT CUSTOMERS KEEP ASKING ABOUT]
Common variations of the question: [LIST 3–5 WAYS CUSTOMERS PHRASE IT]
The correct answer: [PASTE YOUR INTERNAL ANSWER OR PROCESS]
Product/platform: [NAME]
Audience technical level: [BEGINNER / INTERMEDIATE / TECHNICAL]
Article format:
- Title: Written as the customer's question (not "How to...")
- Short answer (2 sentences — scannable summary for people who won't read further)
- Full explanation (step-by-step if procedural, or paragraph if conceptual)
- Common mistakes section (what people get wrong before finding this article)
- Related questions (3 links to articles that commonly follow this one)
Optimize for Google's featured snippet format on the short answer.
What it does: Converts your internal support knowledge into a complete, SEO-optimized help center article.
Why it works: The question-phrasing variants field teaches ChatGPT to write for how customers think, not how your team talks. The common mistakes section is the highest-value section — it addresses the thing customers did before they found the article.
Escalation script for support reps
Escalation
You are a customer experience manager writing internal scripts for frontline support reps.
Task: Write an escalation script for the following situation.
Situation: [DESCRIBE THE SCENARIO — e.g., "customer is threatening to cancel because their data was delayed for 3 days"]
Rep's authority level: [WHAT THE REP CAN AND CANNOT DO WITHOUT MANAGER APPROVAL]
Escalation trigger: [WHEN TO ESCALATE — specific criteria]
Script format:
1. De-escalation opener (what the rep says first — acknowledge, not defend)
2. Information gathering (3 questions to ask before escalating or resolving)
3. Resolution path A: Rep can handle (exactly what to say and do)
4. Resolution path B: Must escalate (handoff language that doesn't make the customer feel passed off)
5. Close regardless of path (how to end the conversation with a positive note)
Write in first-person as if the rep is speaking.
What it does: Produces a ready-to-use escalation script with branching logic for what reps can handle themselves versus what requires management.
Why it works: First-person scripting is immediately usable without translation. The two resolution paths prevent the most common escalation failure: reps who aren't sure when to escalate defaulting to always escalating.
Churn risk response
Retention
You are a customer success manager. A customer has just expressed that they're considering canceling or not renewing. You have one email to change their mind — not through discounts, but by demonstrating that you understand their problem and have a plan.
Task: Write a retention email for the following at-risk customer.
Customer situation:
- Company: [NAME]
- Tenure: [HOW LONG THEY'VE BEEN A CUSTOMER]
- Stated reason for considering leaving: [WHAT THEY SAID]
- Real issue (if different): [YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTUAL PROBLEM]
- Usage data: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — and what they use vs. what they don't]
- What they're getting that they may not know about: [UNDERUSED VALUE]
Email goal: Secure a 20-minute call — not save the account in the email itself.
Tone: Direct and honest. Acknowledge if you dropped the ball. Do not offer a discount in this email.
What it does: Generates a human, honest retention email focused on earning a conversation — not offering a discount to paper over the real issue.
Why it works: The distinction between "stated reason" and "real issue" is the most important field — it forces you to think about what's actually going on, and the email addresses the real issue rather than the surface complaint.
Status page incident update
Incidents
You are a technical communications specialist. You write incident status updates that keep customers informed without creating additional panic or speculation.
Task: Write a status page incident update for the following situation.
Incident type: [OUTAGE / DEGRADED PERFORMANCE / DATA DELAY / PARTIAL SERVICE]
Start time: [TIME AND TIMEZONE]
Current status: [INVESTIGATING / IDENTIFIED / MONITORING / RESOLVED]
What customers are experiencing: [PLAIN LANGUAGE — what they see or can't do]
What you know so far: [ROOT CAUSE IF KNOWN, OR "still investigating"]
What you're doing: [SPECIFIC ACTIONS IN PROGRESS]
Next update ETA: [WHEN YOU'LL POST AGAIN]
Write three versions:
1. Initial update (posted within first 30 minutes — minimal info, maximum calm)
2. Progress update (posted once root cause is identified)
3. Resolution update (incident is resolved — include timeline and what was fixed)
Avoid: Jargon, speculation, blaming external vendors by name, or false optimism about timing.
What it does: Produces all three incident update templates ready to post — covering the full incident arc from initial report to resolution.
Why it works: Having all three versions pre-drafted eliminates the scramble during an active incident. The initial update being "minimal info, maximum calm" reflects how status communication actually works — you often know less than customers demand in the first 30 minutes.
Customer onboarding email sequence
Onboarding
You are a customer success specialist focused on time-to-value. You write onboarding sequences that get customers to their first "aha moment" as fast as possible.
Task: Write a 4-email onboarding sequence for new [PRODUCT] customers.
Context:
- Key activation action (first value moment): [WHAT CUSTOMERS NEED TO DO FIRST]
- Common drop-off points in the first 30 days: [WHERE CUSTOMERS GET STUCK]
- Most valuable underused feature: [THE THING CUSTOMERS WHO CHURN NEVER DISCOVERED]
- Support channel: [EMAIL / CHAT / SLACK COMMUNITY / ETC.]
Email schedule and focus:
- Day 0 (immediate after signup): Welcome + single next action
- Day 2: Check-in + address the most common first stumbling block
- Day 7: Introduce the underused high-value feature
- Day 14: Outcome check-in + community/resource invite
Each email: Subject line + max 150 words + one clear CTA. No listicles. No overwhelming feature tours.
What it does: Generates a complete 4-email onboarding sequence focused on activation, not feature announcements.
Why it works: The "drop-off points" field forces you to address failure modes proactively. Day 7 intentionally surfacing the underused high-value feature is the single highest-leverage onboarding move for reducing churn.
Job description — attract, not just describe
Recruiting
You are a recruiter and employer brand specialist. You write job descriptions that attract the right candidates by focusing on impact and growth — not requirements lists.
Task: Write a job description for the following role.
Role: [TITLE]
Team: [TEAM / DEPARTMENT]
Level: [IC1–IC5 OR MANAGER / DIRECTOR / VP]
Company stage: [SEED / SERIES A / B / GROWTH / ENTERPRISE]
The most exciting thing about this role: [WHAT A GREAT CANDIDATE WOULD BE EXCITED TO WORK ON]
The hardest part about this role: [BE HONEST — what makes it challenging]
Must-have requirements: [MAX 5 — TRULY NON-NEGOTIABLE]
Nice-to-have: [MAX 3]
What success looks like in 90 days: [SPECIFIC OUTCOMES]
Format:
- About the role (3 sentences — lead with impact, not tasks)
- What you'll do (5 bullets — outcomes, not activities)
- What we're looking for (must-haves only)
- Why join us (company-level and role-level reasons — honest, not generic)
Remove from the output: Years of experience requirements, degree requirements, and any language that could deter underrepresented candidates.
What it does: Produces an inclusive, impact-focused job description that attracts ambitious candidates rather than filtering for pedigree.
Why it works: Asking "what's the hardest part" forces honesty that actually attracts the right fit and repels the wrong fit — reducing wasted interview cycles. Removing experience and degree requirements is both inclusive and legally defensible.
Interview question set by competency
Interviewing
You are a structured interviewing specialist. You design question sets that produce predictive, legally defensible interview data using the STAR method.
Task: Create a structured interview question set for the following role.
Role: [TITLE]
Top 5 competencies required: [LIST THEM — e.g., "stakeholder management, data analysis, cross-functional influence, prioritization, customer empathy"]
For each competency:
1. Opening behavioral question (past experience — "Tell me about a time...")
2. Follow-up probing question (go deeper — assume the candidate gave a surface answer)
3. A hypothetical / situational question (for candidates without direct experience)
4. Green flag signals (what a strong answer includes)
5. Red flag signals (what a weak or evasive answer looks like)
Format as a usable interview guide — one competency per section, suitable for sharing with interviewers who need structure.
What it does: Produces a complete structured interview guide with 3 questions per competency and scoring signals — ready to share with any interviewer.
Why it works: The follow-up probing question is the most valuable output — it's the question that separates real experience from rehearsed stories. Green/red flag signals make the guide usable by non-specialist interviewers.
Performance review — manager writing assistance
Performance
You are an HR business partner helping a manager write a fair, specific, and constructive performance review.
Task: Draft a performance review for the following employee.
Employee role: [TITLE]
Review period: [TIMEFRAME]
Performance rating: [EXCEEDS / MEETS / PARTIALLY MEETS / DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS]
Manager's raw notes on performance:
[PASTE BULLET POINTS OR STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS NOTES HERE]
Structure the output as:
1. Strengths (3 specific examples from the notes — behavioral, not generic)
2. Areas for development (2 specific areas — written as growth opportunities, not criticism)
3. Impact statement (how this person's work affected the team or business)
4. Goals for next period (3 SMART goals derived from the development areas)
Tone: Professional, specific, and growth-oriented. No legal-risk language. No vague praise like "great team player."
Flag any language in the notes that I should rephrase for legal or HR compliance reasons.
What it does: Transforms a manager's raw notes into a structured, defensible performance review — plus compliance flags.
Why it works: The legal/compliance flag instruction is the most valuable addition — it catches language like "she's not a fit anymore" or age/disability references before they become HR liabilities. SMART goal derivation from development areas closes the loop between assessment and growth.
Offer letter framework
Offers
You are an HR professional helping draft a professional offer letter.
Task: Draft an offer letter framework for the following hire.
Candidate name: [NAME]
Role title: [TITLE]
Department: [DEPARTMENT]
Start date: [DATE OR "to be confirmed"]
Compensation: Salary [AMOUNT] / Hourly [RATE] — [FT / PT]
Bonus: [AMOUNT OR % IF APPLICABLE / "not applicable"]
Equity: [SHARES / OPTIONS / NONE]
Benefits effective: [IMMEDIATELY / DAY 31 / ETC.]
Reporting to: [MANAGER TITLE]
At-will employment: [YES / NO]
State: [STATE — for legal compliance language]
Note: This is a draft framework for legal review before sending. Flag any fields that vary by state employment law or that require customization by our legal team. Do not fabricate any legal provisions.
What it does: Produces a complete offer letter draft with all key compensation and employment fields, with explicit flags for legal review.
Why it works: The legal review disclaimer and "do not fabricate legal provisions" constraint are critical — they keep ChatGPT from inventing employment law requirements that vary by jurisdiction. This is a draft accelerator, not a legal document.
Employee survey analysis
Analytics
You are a people analytics specialist. You transform employee survey data into actionable insights for leadership — without softening difficult findings or burying the signal in caveats.
Task: Analyze the following employee survey results and produce an executive brief.
Survey topic: [ENGAGEMENT / ONBOARDING / EXIT / PULSE / ETC.]
Response rate: [%]
Period: [TIMEFRAME]
Raw data or summary: [PASTE RESULTS — ratings, open-text themes, or summary stats]
Company context: [RECENT CHANGES, EVENTS, OR ISSUES THAT MAY EXPLAIN TRENDS]
Output:
1. Headline finding (1 sentence — what leadership most needs to know)
2. Top 3 strengths (with supporting data)
3. Top 3 areas of concern (with supporting data — do not minimize)
4. Notable open-text themes (5 themes with example quotes if available)
5. Recommended actions (3 specific, time-bound actions with owners)
6. What to watch in the next survey cycle
Do not average away the differences between teams or segments — flag if one group skews the results significantly.
What it does: Converts raw survey data into an executive brief with findings and concrete action recommendations.
Why it works: "Do not minimize" is critical — ChatGPT will soften difficult findings by default. The instruction not to average across segments is equally important: company-wide averages often hide team-level problems that require different interventions.
New employee 30-60-90 day plan
Onboarding
You are a people operations specialist who designs 30-60-90 day plans that make new hires productive faster and reduce early-stage churn.
Task: Create a 30-60-90 day plan for the following new hire.
Role: [TITLE]
Department: [DEPARTMENT]
Company stage: [SIZE / STAGE]
Primary goal of the role in first 90 days: [WHAT SUCCESS LOOKS LIKE]
Known challenges they'll face: [POLITICAL, TECHNICAL, OR TEAM DYNAMICS ISSUES]
Key stakeholders they need to build relationships with: [LIST 5]
For each phase (30 / 60 / 90 days):
- Primary focus area
- 3 specific learning objectives
- 3 specific deliverables with success criteria
- Key relationships to establish
- Potential blockers and how to navigate them
Include a "Week 1 checklist" at the top — the 10 things a new hire should do in their first 5 days.
What it does: Produces a complete, role-specific onboarding plan with a Week 1 checklist and blocker navigation guidance.
Why it works: Including "potential blockers and how to navigate them" for each phase is what separates a real onboarding plan from a checklist — it prepares the new hire for organizational reality, not just task completion.
Budget variance summary
Reporting
You are a financial analyst preparing a budget variance report for a non-finance audience. You explain numbers in terms of business impact, not accounting mechanics.
Task: Write a budget variance summary for [DEPARTMENT / COMPANY] for [PERIOD].
Data to analyze:
[PASTE YOUR BUDGET VS. ACTUAL TABLE OR SUMMARIZE KEY LINE ITEMS]
Output format:
1. Headline (1 sentence: are we on track, over, or under, and by how much overall?)
2. Top 3 favorable variances (explain why in plain business language — not just "volume variance")
3. Top 3 unfavorable variances (explain root cause and whether it's a one-time or recurring issue)
4. Forecast impact (how do these variances change the full-year outlook?)
5. Actions recommended (what decisions do these variances require this month?)
Write for a CEO or VP who reads the summary in 2 minutes and needs to make a decision — not for an accountant reviewing the books.
What it does: Converts a budget vs. actual table into a narrative variance report that drives decisions — not just records what happened.
Why it works: The "one-time vs. recurring" distinction in unfavorable variances is the most important business question in any budget review. The 2-minute executive framing forces useful brevity that most variance reports lack.
Forecast narrative for board update
Board Reporting
You are a CFO or VP Finance preparing the forecast narrative section of a board update. You communicate financial trajectory with honesty about risks — not just optimism.
Task: Write a forecast narrative for [COMPANY] for [QUARTER/YEAR].
Forecast data:
- Revenue forecast vs. plan: [AMOUNT AND % VS. PLAN]
- Key drivers of the forecast: [TOP 3 ASSUMPTIONS]
- Risk scenarios: [WHAT COULD MAKE IT BETTER / WORSE]
- Cash position and runway: [CURRENT CASH + RUNWAY AT BURN RATE]
- Key metrics to highlight: [LIST 3–5 — ARR, NDR, CAC, LTV, etc.]
Output:
1. Forecast summary (3 sentences — headline number, confidence level, key assumption)
2. Revenue bridge (what changed vs. prior forecast and why)
3. Sensitivity analysis (what happens to the forecast if assumption X changes by Y%)
4. Risk register (3 risks and their financial impact if they materialize)
5. Recommended board discussion topics based on the forecast
Tone: Confident but honest. Do not hide risks with positive framing. Boards need complete information.
What it does: Produces a complete forecast narrative section for a board package — including honest risk disclosure and sensitivity analysis.
Why it works: The explicit instruction to "not hide risks with positive framing" is critical — it overrides ChatGPT's natural tendency to produce optimistic summaries. The revenue bridge section is the highest-value output for boards trying to understand why the number changed.
Unit economics breakdown
Analysis
You are a financial analyst specializing in SaaS and subscription business unit economics.
Task: Calculate and explain the unit economics for the following business.
Inputs:
- Average contract value (ACV): $[AMOUNT]
- Customer acquisition cost (CAC) — fully loaded: $[AMOUNT]
- Gross margin: [%]
- Monthly churn rate: [%]
- Average contract length: [MONTHS]
- Expansion revenue rate: [% OF CUSTOMERS WHO EXPAND ANNUALLY]
Calculate and explain:
1. Customer LTV (with formula shown)
2. LTV:CAC ratio (and what it means for this business)
3. CAC payback period (months to recover acquisition cost)
4. Net dollar retention (if expansion data is provided)
5. LTV:CAC target range and where this business stands vs. healthy benchmarks
6. The one lever that would most improve unit economics — with quantified impact if that lever improved 20%
Show all calculations so I can verify them.
What it does: Calculates all core SaaS unit economics metrics and identifies the single highest-leverage improvement lever with quantified impact.
Why it works: "Show all calculations" prevents ChatGPT from producing numbers without showing the math — which makes them unverifiable. The highest-leverage lever question is the most actionable output: it converts analysis into a prioritized action.
Vendor contract cost analysis
Procurement
You are a finance business partner helping evaluate a vendor contract.
Task: Analyze the following vendor contract and produce a financial summary for the decision-maker.
Vendor: [NAME]
Contract type: [SaaS / SERVICE / HARDWARE / STAFFING]
Proposed cost: [AMOUNT — ANNUAL / MONTHLY]
Contract length: [TERM]
Auto-renewal clause: [YES — [NOTICE PERIOD] / NO]
Current alternative cost: [WHAT WE SPEND TODAY ON THIS FUNCTION]
Analyze:
1. Total cost of ownership over the contract term (including implementation, training, and exit costs if provided)
2. Cost vs. alternative comparison
3. Break-even analysis (how much value must this contract deliver to justify the cost?)
4. Key financial risks in the contract terms (auto-renewal, price escalation, usage caps)
5. Negotiation levers: what terms should we push back on, and what's the estimated savings?
6. Recommendation: sign, negotiate, or walk away — with financial rationale
What it does: Converts vendor contract details into a complete financial analysis with a clear sign/negotiate/walk recommendation.
Why it works: The break-even analysis is the most important section — it shifts the question from "is this cheap?" to "does this deliver enough value?" The negotiation levers section gives the finance partner concrete talking points, not just analysis.
Monthly business review (MBR) narrative
Reporting
You are a business operations analyst writing a monthly business review for the leadership team.
Task: Write the narrative section of the MBR for [DEPARTMENT/COMPANY] for [MONTH].
Data summary:
[PASTE KEY METRICS — revenue, leads, conversions, NPS, support tickets, headcount, etc.]
Context:
- Key initiatives this month: [LIST 2–3]
- What went well: [YOUR NOTES]
- What didn't: [YOUR NOTES — be honest]
- External factors: [MARKET, COMPETITION, OR MACRO EVENTS THAT AFFECTED PERFORMANCE]
Output structure:
1. Month in 3 sentences (headline, primary driver, primary blocker)
2. Metric highlights table (pull the 5 most important metrics, their targets, actuals, and delta)
3. Initiative status (each initiative: on track / at risk / complete + 1 sentence of context)
4. Key learnings this month (2–3 things we now know that we didn't know last month)
5. Priorities for next month (3 specific items, with the criteria for calling each one "done")
What it does: Converts raw monthly data and notes into a structured MBR narrative ready for leadership review.
Why it works: The "month in 3 sentences" constraint is invaluable — it forces a crisp summary that leaders read before diving into detail. The key learnings section is what separates a reporting document from a management document.
Financial model assumptions memo
Modeling
You are a CFO or senior finance analyst documenting the assumptions behind a financial model for board and investor review.
Task: Write an assumptions memo for the following financial model.
Model: [DESCRIPTION — e.g., "3-year revenue forecast for SaaS expansion into enterprise market"]
Key assumptions: [LIST YOUR MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS — growth rates, conversion rates, headcount, pricing, etc.]
Basis for each assumption: [WHERE DID EACH COME FROM — historical data, industry benchmarks, management judgment?]
Sensitivity of the model to each assumption: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW for each]
Output:
1. Executive summary of the model's purpose and key outputs
2. Assumption table (assumption, value, basis, sensitivity rating)
3. Narrative explanation of the 3 highest-sensitivity assumptions (why they matter and how they were set)
4. Conservative vs. base vs. optimistic scenario summary
5. Assumptions that require validation before the model should be relied upon for decisions
Flag any circular dependencies or assumptions that contradict each other.
What it does: Produces a complete assumptions memo with sensitivity ratings and scenario comparison — the documentation layer that makes financial models defensible.
Why it works: Sensitivity ratings force prioritization of which assumptions matter most. The "requires validation" section is the most honest output — it tells leadership which parts of the model are believed, not known.
OKR drafting — company or team level
Planning
You are a business strategy consultant with expertise in OKR implementation. You write OKRs that are ambitious but achievable, and measurable without being vanity metrics.
Task: Draft OKRs for [COMPANY / TEAM NAME] for [QUARTER / YEAR].
Context:
- Company stage: [SEED / SERIES A / GROWTH / ENTERPRISE]
- Top business priority this period: [WHAT MATTERS MOST]
- Last period's performance: [BRIEF SUMMARY — what did you hit, miss, and learn]
- Key initiatives already planned: [LIST 2–4]
- Resources: [HEADCOUNT AND BUDGET CONTEXT]
Output:
- 3 Objectives (each: ambitious, qualitative, inspiring — not a metric)
- 3–4 Key Results per Objective (each: measurable, time-bound, outcome not output)
- For each KR: baseline (where are we today?), target, and the leading indicator that predicts whether we'll hit it
- One "anti-goal" per Objective: what we are explicitly NOT trying to do this period
Flag any KRs that are measuring activity (output) rather than impact (outcome).
What it does: Produces a complete OKR set with baselines, targets, leading indicators, and explicit anti-goals — ready for team alignment.
Why it works: The anti-goal instruction is the most unusual and most valuable output — it forces explicit scope decisions that most planning processes avoid. The output vs. outcome flag catches the most common OKR failure mode before it gets locked in.
Process improvement brief
Operations
You are an operations consultant specializing in process improvement and eliminating operational waste.
Task: Write a process improvement brief for the following workflow.
Process: [NAME OF THE PROCESS]
Current state: [HOW IT WORKS TODAY — step by step if possible]
Pain points identified: [WHAT'S BROKEN, SLOW, OR ERROR-PRONE]
Stakeholders involved: [WHO TOUCHES THIS PROCESS]
Volume: [HOW OFTEN THIS RUNS — daily / weekly / per deal / etc.]
Tools currently used: [LIST THE SYSTEMS]
Output:
1. Current state summary (what happens today and what it costs — in time and money if estimable)
2. Root cause analysis (why does each pain point exist?)
3. Future state design (how the process should work — step by step)
4. Gap analysis (what needs to change to get from current to future state?)
5. Implementation roadmap (3 phases: quick wins in 30 days, medium-term in 90 days, structural in 6 months)
6. Success metrics (how will we know the new process is working?)
What it does: Converts a broken process description into a full improvement brief with phased implementation roadmap and success metrics.
Why it works: The root cause analysis step prevents jumping to solutions for symptoms. The 3-phase timeline separates immediate relief (quick wins) from structural fixes — which is how real operational improvements get adopted.
Board presentation narrative
Executive Communication
You are a CEO or Chief of Staff preparing the narrative for a board of directors presentation.
Task: Write the narrative script and slide-by-slide talking points for the following board update.
Meeting type: [QUARTERLY REVIEW / STRATEGIC PLANNING / FINANCING UPDATE / SPECIAL TOPIC]
Company stage: [SERIES / REVENUE RANGE]
Audience: [BOARD COMPOSITION — investors, independents, etc.]
Topics to cover: [LIST 4–6 AGENDA ITEMS]
Key metrics to present: [LIST YOUR TOP 5–8 METRICS]
Key decision you need from the board: [WHAT APPROVAL OR INPUT ARE YOU SEEKING?]
What went unexpectedly in the last period: [HONEST SUMMARY]
Output:
- Meeting narrative arc (how the story flows from opening to decision request)
- For each slide/topic: headline (the point, not the title), talking points (3 bullets max), the question the board is likely to ask, and your prepared response
- Opening and closing language
- What NOT to put in the board deck (things that create noise without informing the decision)
What it does: Produces a complete board presentation guide with narrative arc, talking points, anticipated questions, and prepared responses — plus what to leave out.
Why it works: The anticipated-question + prepared-response structure is the highest-leverage preparation a CEO or CFO can do. "What NOT to include" is rare but critical — board decks routinely fail by including too much, diffusing attention from the actual ask.
SWOT to strategy — actionable version
Strategy
You are a strategy consultant. Most SWOT analyses are useless because they stop at identification and never become strategy. Your job is to convert a SWOT into actionable strategic choices.
Task: Convert the following SWOT into a strategic action plan.
Company/team: [NAME]
Strengths: [LIST 3–5]
Weaknesses: [LIST 3–5]
Opportunities: [LIST 3–5]
Threats: [LIST 3–5]
Output — the SO/ST/WO/WT strategic matrix:
1. SO strategies: How to use strengths to capture opportunities (2–3 strategies)
2. ST strategies: How to use strengths to defend against threats (2–3 strategies)
3. WO strategies: How to improve weaknesses to capture opportunities (2–3 strategies)
4. WT strategies: How to minimize weaknesses and avoid threats (2–3 strategies)
For each strategy:
- One sentence description
- The metric that would indicate this strategy is working
- The biggest risk in executing it
Then: Rank all strategies by impact × feasibility and recommend the top 3 to prioritize this quarter.
What it does: Converts a raw SWOT into the full SO/ST/WO/WT strategic matrix with prioritized actions — transforming analysis into a decision-ready framework.
Why it works: The impact × feasibility ranking is the output most SWOT exercises skip — it's what converts a 2×2 grid into a prioritized action list. The "biggest execution risk" field for each strategy prevents naive optimism about implementation.
Project post-mortem
Operations
You are a project management specialist facilitating a post-mortem for a completed project.
Task: Write a project post-mortem report for the following project.
Project: [NAME AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION]
Outcome: [DELIVERED ON TIME AND BUDGET / LATE / OVER BUDGET / SCOPE REDUCED / CANCELED]
Duration: [PLANNED VS. ACTUAL]
Budget: [PLANNED VS. ACTUAL]
Team: [SIZE AND FUNCTIONS INVOLVED]
Key events: [TIMELINE OF MAJOR MILESTONES, DECISIONS, AND ISSUES — bullet points]
Output:
1. Executive summary (3 sentences: what the project was, what happened, what we learned)
2. What went well (specific — not "good teamwork")
3. What went wrong (specific root causes — not symptoms)
4. Timeline of critical decisions and their impact
5. Lessons learned (each with a recommended process change to prevent recurrence)
6. Action items for the next similar project (owner + deadline for each)
Write this as a document the team would actually find useful in a year — not a blame assignment exercise.
What it does: Produces a structured post-mortem with root causes, decision timeline, and concrete process improvements — not just a "what went wrong" list.
Why it works: The "not a blame assignment exercise" framing changes the tone of the output significantly. The recommended process change for each lesson learned closes the gap between insight and institutional memory.
Executive team meeting agenda
Leadership
You are a Chief of Staff designing high-leverage executive team meetings.
Task: Create a [WEEKLY / BIWEEKLY / MONTHLY] executive team meeting agenda for [COMPANY NAME].
Meeting context:
- Team: [LIST ATTENDEES BY TITLE]
- Meeting duration: [60 / 90 / 120 MINUTES]
- Current company priority: [TOP BUSINESS FOCUS THIS QUARTER]
- Standing issues that always come up: [LIST 2–4]
- Decisions needed this meeting: [LIST ANY KNOWN DECISIONS]
Output:
- Full agenda with time allocations
- For each agenda item: the question to be answered (not just a topic name), pre-read required (yes/no + what), and who owns the discussion
- A "parking lot" process for off-agenda topics that arise
- Rules of engagement for the meeting (the norms that make this meeting worth attending)
- A 5-minute closing ritual that captures decisions and action items before people leave
Flag any agenda items that should be async instead of live discussion.
What it does: Produces a complete, structured executive meeting agenda with roles, timing, pre-reads, and a closing ritual — ready to send to the team.
Why it works: Framing each agenda item as "the question to be answered" rather than a topic is the single most impactful meeting design change. The async flag instruction often removes 20–30% of typical agenda items that don't need a room.
Internal comms — company-wide announcement
Communications
You are a Chief of Staff or Head of Communications drafting an all-hands announcement.
Task: Draft an internal company-wide announcement for the following news.
Announcement topic: [WHAT YOU'RE ANNOUNCING — reorganization, leadership change, new initiative, policy update, layoff, acquisition, etc.]
Key facts: [THE ACTUAL INFORMATION — dates, names, numbers, scope]
Why this is happening: [THE HONEST REASON — employees will know if this is spin]
What changes for employees: [PRACTICAL IMPACT — what is different starting when?]
What doesn't change: [WHAT STAYS THE SAME — important for reducing anxiety]
Questions employees are likely to ask: [LIST 3–5]
Output:
1. Subject line (for email) or slide title (for all-hands)
2. Opening sentence (direct — state what's happening in the first sentence, not paragraph 3)
3. Body (why → what → what it means for you → what stays the same)
4. FAQ section addressing the 5 most likely questions
5. Next steps and timeline for employees
Tone: Direct, human, honest. Do not use corporate euphemisms like "rightsizing," "sunsetting," or "pivoting."
What it does: Produces a complete internal announcement with FAQ section — designed for candid communication that employees actually respect.
Why it works: The "why this is happening + honest reason" field is what separates communications employees trust from communications that breed cynicism. The banned euphemisms list prevents the most common corporate language failures that destroy credibility in difficult announcements.