Prompt Library

You are a senior magazine editor with 20 years of experience cutting flabby prose. Edit the text below. Specifically:

1. Identify and cut every sentence that doesn't earn its place
2. Tighten weak verbs and remove adverbs
3. Flag any claim that needs a source
4. Suggest one stronger lead and one stronger ending

Return the edited version inline, with your reasoning for each cut in [brackets]. Do not summarise. Do not be polite.

Text to edit:
[PASTE HERE]

I am going to provide three samples of writing in a specific voice. Analyse the voice carefully: sentence rhythm, vocabulary, characteristic moves. Then rewrite the target text to match that voice without changing the underlying meaning.

Sample 1:
[PASTE SAMPLE 1]

Sample 2:
[PASTE SAMPLE 2]

Sample 3:
[PASTE SAMPLE 3]

Target text to rewrite:
[PASTE TARGET]

Return the rewrite only. Do not explain.

Generate 15 headlines for the article below. Each headline should:

- Be under 70 characters
- Include a specific number, name, or counter-intuitive claim where possible
- Avoid "Top 10" / "Best of" / clickbait patterns
- Sound like something a senior magazine editor would approve

Rank the 15 from most likely to be clicked (#1) to least (#15). Briefly explain the top 3.

Article:
[PASTE ARTICLE]

I want to write a 2,000-word piece on the topic below. Produce a complete outline that includes:

1. A working title and dek (~25 words)
2. The single argument or claim the piece makes
3. 4-6 section headers, each with a one-sentence summary
4. 2-3 specific sources, examples, or data points I should pull in
5. The intended ending

Topic:
[PASTE TOPIC]

Audience: [BUILDERS / EXECUTIVES / GENERAL READERS]
Voice: [ANALYTICAL / OPINIONATED / NEUTRAL]

Refactor the code below. Constraints:

1. Do NOT introduce new dependencies
2. Match the existing style (look at the imports and the rest of the file)
3. Preserve the public API exactly
4. Explain in 2-3 bullets at the top what changed and why
5. If there's a bug you noticed, fix it but flag it separately

Code:
[PASTE CODE]

Review the code below from three perspectives:

1. A staff engineer focused on correctness and edge cases
2. A senior engineer focused on readability and team conventions
3. A pragmatic principal who only mentions things worth fighting for

Each perspective should produce a separate review block. End with one ranked list of fixes by priority.

Code:
[PASTE CODE]

I'm seeing this error:

[PASTE ERROR]

In this code:
[PASTE CODE]

What I expected to happen:
[DESCRIBE EXPECTED]

What actually happens:
[DESCRIBE ACTUAL]

Tell me: (1) the most likely root cause, (2) the second most likely cause, (3) the minimal fix, (4) any other places in the code that might have the same issue.

Generate a complete test suite for the function below using [JEST / VITEST / PYTEST / GO TESTING].

The tests should cover:
1. Happy path
2. Edge cases (empty input, null, undefined, max values, min values)
3. Error paths (wrong type, network failure, etc.)
4. Concurrency or ordering issues if applicable

Each test should have a descriptive name and a one-line comment explaining what it verifies.

Function:
[PASTE FUNCTION]

Spec:
[PASTE BEHAVIOURAL SPEC]

I'm researching [TOPIC]. I'm going to paste three sources below. Synthesise them by:

1. Identifying the points where all three agree
2. Identifying the points where they disagree, and on what
3. Noting where any source makes a claim without evidence
4. Producing a single 5-bullet summary of the actual state of knowledge

Source 1: [PASTE]
Source 2: [PASTE]
Source 3: [PASTE]

I hold this position:
[PASTE YOUR POSITION]

Argue against it as steel-manned as possible. Specifically:

1. Construct the strongest possible counter-argument
2. Identify the assumptions in my position that are most vulnerable
3. List the three best pieces of evidence that someone arguing against me would cite
4. Note where my position is on weakest ground

Do not be polite. Do not hedge. The goal is to find the weakest link before someone else does.

Summarise the paper below for someone who is technically literate but not a specialist in this field. Structure:

1. The core claim, in one sentence
2. The method, in 2-3 sentences
3. The result, in 2-3 sentences
4. Why it matters, in 2 sentences
5. The single biggest limitation
6. Three open questions this paper raises

Paper:
[PASTE OR LINK]

Compare [PRODUCT A] and [PRODUCT B] honestly. For each:

1. The use case it's actually best for
2. The use case it's actually worst for
3. What it costs (real numbers)
4. The most common reason users complain about it
5. The kind of buyer who picks it for the wrong reason

Then give me a single decision recommendation based on [MY CONSTRAINTS HERE].

Do not summarise marketing pages. Be specific about real tradeoffs.

Below is the email I want to send. Make it better. Specifically:

1. Tighten it - cut every word that's not earning its place
2. Reorganise so the most important thing is in the first two sentences
3. Sound human, not corporate
4. If anything is unclear or could be misread, flag it before sending

Context: [WHO IS THIS GOING TO, WHAT'S OUR RELATIONSHIP, WHAT'S THE GOAL]

My draft:
[PASTE DRAFT]

I have a meeting with [NAME] tomorrow about [TOPIC]. Help me prep.

Context I know:
- [BACKGROUND POINT 1]
- [BACKGROUND POINT 2]
- [BACKGROUND POINT 3]

What I want from the meeting:
[PRIMARY OUTCOME]

Produce a brief that includes:
1. The three points I most need to make
2. The three questions I should ask them
3. The two objections they're most likely to raise, and how I should respond
4. What success looks like vs. what an OK meeting looks like vs. failure
5. The single trap I should avoid

I'm trying to decide [THE DECISION]. The options are:

A: [OPTION A]
B: [OPTION B]
C: [OPTION C if relevant]

Structure this decision for me:

1. What is the actual question being asked here (re-frame if mine is wrong)
2. The 4-5 criteria that should drive the decision, weighted
3. How each option scores on each criterion (1-5)
4. The single biggest unknown that, if resolved, would change the answer
5. Your recommendation and confidence level

Be specific. Avoid corporate consulting language.

Explain [CONCEPT] to me in three layers:

Layer 1: Explain it to a smart 12-year-old. Maximum 80 words. No jargon.

Layer 2: Explain it to someone with general university background. 200 words. Acceptable jargon, defined inline.

Layer 3: Explain it the way an expert would explain it to another expert. 300 words. Use technical terms freely.

At the end, list the single insight that someone who only learned Layer 1 would miss.

I want to drill myself on [TOPIC]. Ask me one question at a time. After each answer:

1. Tell me if I'm right
2. If wrong, explain why and the correct answer
3. Adjust the difficulty based on my last 3 answers
4. After 10 questions, give me a summary of where I'm strong and where I'm weak

My current level: [BEGINNER / INTERMEDIATE / ADVANCED]
Specific subtopics I want to focus on: [LIST]

I want to get noticeably better at [SKILL] in the next 8 weeks. My current level: [SELF-ASSESSMENT]. My availability: [HOURS PER WEEK].

Build me an 8-week plan that:

1. Identifies the 3 sub-skills that matter most
2. Allocates each week to specific sub-skills with measurable outputs
3. Includes one challenge or test at the end of weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8
4. Names the single highest-leverage habit I should build alongside the plan
5. Tells me what good looks like by the end

Be specific. No vague "practice daily" suggestions.