The Golden Prompt Library

The prompts worth keeping, organised by the job they do. Week 1's pack covered everyday tasks; these are the heavier ones.

Everything in [BRACKETS] is yours to replace. The more specific you are there, the less generic the output.

Analysis and judgement

The assumption audit

Here is my plan: [PLAN]

List every assumption it depends on, including the ones I have not stated.
Sort by: how much damage it causes if wrong × how likely it is to be wrong.
For the top three, give me the cheapest test I could run this week.

The disagreement

Argue against [POSITION] as well as it can honestly be argued — the version
a smart, informed person who disagrees with me would actually make.
Then tell me which single point I should take most seriously, and why.
Do not straw-man it to make me feel better.

The second opinion

Here is a decision I have already made: [DECISION]
Here is my reasoning: [REASONING]

Do not validate it. Find the flaw. If there is genuinely no flaw, say so
in one sentence and stop.

Comparative analysis

Compare [A] and [B] for someone whose priority is [PRIORITY].
Use a table. Columns: dimension, A, B, which wins and why.
Include at least two dimensions where the answer is not obvious.
End with: which one, and under what circumstances I should pick the other.

Writing

The hostile reader

Read this as [SKEPTICAL AUDIENCE — e.g. "a CFO who thinks this is a waste of money"].
Where do they stop reading? What do they not believe? What question does
this fail to answer?

[PASTE]

The compression

Cut this by [PERCENT] without losing a single fact or number.
Show me what you cut as a list, so I can put back anything I disagree with.

[PASTE]

The structure pass

Do not edit the words. Tell me whether the structure is right:
- Is the most important thing first?
- Does each paragraph earn its place?
- What order would serve the reader better?

[PASTE]

The opening

Write five different opening sentences for this piece. Make them genuinely
different from each other in approach — not five rewordings.
Then tell me which fits my audience and why.

Context: [WHAT THE PIECE IS, WHO READS IT]

Documents and data

The extraction

From the text below, extract every [THING] into a table.
Columns: [COLUMNS].
If a value is missing or ambiguous, write UNCLEAR — do not infer it.
After the table, list every row where you had to make a judgement call.

[PASTE]

The reconciliation

Here are two sources that should agree: [A] and [B].
List every place they disagree. For each, say which is more likely correct
and what would settle it. Do not average them.

The document interrogation

I have uploaded [DOCUMENT]. Do not summarise it yet.

1. What kind of document is this, and what is it for?
2. What are the three claims everything else depends on?
3. What does it conspicuously not address?
4. Quote the single most important sentence, exactly.

Learning

The prerequisite check

I want to understand [TOPIC].
Before explaining it, tell me what I need to understand first, and ask me
two questions to check whether I already do. Wait for my answers.

The misconception hunt

What do most people get wrong about [TOPIC]?
For each misconception: what people believe, what is actually true, and
why the wrong version is so appealing.

The Feynman test

I am going to explain [TOPIC] to you as if you were a beginner.
Listen, then tell me: what did I get wrong, what did I skip, and where
did I use a word I clearly do not fully understand?

My explanation: [YOUR EXPLANATION]

Planning

The dependency map

Goal: [GOAL] by [DATE].
Break into tasks. For each: what done looks like, rough effort,
and what must finish before it can start.
Then tell me the critical path and the one task most likely to slip.

The pre-mortem

It is [DATE] and [PROJECT] has failed. Write the three most plausible
post-mortems. For each: what went wrong, when it became inevitable, and the
earliest signal I could have seen.

The scope cut

Here is everything in scope: [LIST]
I have [CONSTRAINT — time, money, people].
What do I cut? Give me three versions: cut 20%, cut 50%, cut to the
smallest thing still worth shipping. For each, say what I lose.

Meetings and people

The prep

Meeting: [TOPIC] with [WHO]
What I want: [OUTCOME]
What I know about their position: [CONTEXT]
History: [RELEVANT BACKGROUND]

Give me: three questions that move this forward, the two objections
I should expect with a response to each, and the one thing I should not say.

The difficult message

I need to tell [WHO] that [DIFFICULT THING].
Relationship: [DESCRIBE]
What I want afterwards: [OUTCOME]
What I must not do: [CONSTRAINTS]

Write it three ways: direct, softened, and written as if the relationship
matters more than this particular issue.
Then tell me which one fits and what I am risking with each.

Quality control

The claim audit

List every factual claim below as a numbered list — every number, date, name,
and statement presented as fact.
Mark each: verifiable / unverifiable / likely wrong.
Do not fix anything.

[PASTE]

The consistency check

Read these [N] documents. Find every place they contradict each other or
use the same term differently. Quote both sides of each contradiction.

How to use this well

Do not use these verbatim forever. Each time one produces a bad result, add a line fixing the problem and save your version. After a few months your library will look nothing like this one, and it will be better — because it is tuned to your work.

The rule that matters most: if you cannot explain the output, do not send it.