A working library of prompts you can copy, paste, and adapt. Organized by use case.
Tip: each prompt has bracketed
[placeholders]youâll need to fill in. Donât skip them â theyâre where the leverage is.
I need to write [type of doc] about [topic]. Before drafting, do this:
1. Brainstorm 5 angles I could take, each with a 1-sentence pitch.
2. Recommend the best one and explain why in 2 sentences.
3. Wait for me to confirm before writing anything.
You are a sharp editor. Read my draft below. Don't rewrite it â instead:
1. List the 3 weakest sentences with specific rewrites
2. Flag any place I'm being vague or hedging
3. Suggest one structural change that would improve flow
<draft>
[paste]
</draft>
Here are 3 things I've written:
<sample_1>[paste]</sample_1>
<sample_2>[paste]</sample_2>
<sample_3>[paste]</sample_3>
Now write a [thing] in the same voice on the topic of [subject].
Keep it [length].
Cut this by 30% without losing meaning. Don't change my voice or
add new ideas. Show only the tightened version.
[paste]
I have a [type] meeting with [who] about [topic]. The desired outcome
is [outcome]. Help me prep:
- 3 questions I should be ready to answer
- 3 questions I should ask
- The one risk I'm probably underweighting
I want to [project goal]. Break it into the 5â7 smallest concrete
next actions, each starting with a verb and finishable in under 90
minutes. Order them by dependency. Flag the one I should start today.
I'm choosing between [Option A] and [Option B] for [context].
Build a decision matrix:
- Rows: 5 criteria that actually matter for me
- Columns: the two options
- Score each 1-5 with a brief reason
Then tell me your pick and the one thing that would flip your answer.
I need to send [recipient] an email saying [hard message]. Context:
[your context â relationship, history, stakes].
Write three versions, each labeled with its strategy:
- "Direct and warm"
- "Hold the line"
- "Soft landing"
Each under 150 words. After, recommend which fits and why.
Explain [concept] to me as if I'm smart but new to the field.
- Start with a 1-sentence summary
- Use one concrete real-world analogy
- Tell me one common misconception
- End with a question that tests if I really understood
After I answer, tell me what I got right or wrong.
I believe [position]. Steelman the strongest opposing view in
3 paragraphs â make it the best version, not a strawman. Then
note where my view is most vulnerable.
Here's how I'm thinking about [problem]:
<my_reasoning>
[paste]
</my_reasoning>
Find the 2-3 most consequential flaws in my reasoning. Be direct.
For each: name the flaw, explain it, and suggest the better frame.
I'm learning [topic]. Below are my notes. Generate 15 flashcards
in Anki-importable format (Q? Tab A.).
- Mix recall, reasoning, and "explain in your own words" cards
- Skip trivia; focus on what actually matters
<notes>
[paste]
</notes>
Review this function as a senior engineer would. Focus on:
1. Correctness (any bugs?)
2. Security/safety
3. Performance
4. Readability
Don't rewrite it. Give a numbered list of concerns ranked by severity.
```python
[paste]
### 14. Explain code I didn't write
Walk me through this code section by section. Assume I know the language but not this codebase. After the walk-through, tell me:
[paste]
### 15. Test cases I'd miss
Hereâs a function. Generate a test suite that catches the bugs Iâd miss. Specifically include:
[paste]
### 16. Refactor with intent
Refactor this code so [specific goal: e.g. âthe auth logic is reusableâ, âthe function is under 30 linesâ, âside effects are isolatedâ].
Donât just tidy it. Make the intended structure visible. Show before/after diff style with a 1-line note on each change.
[paste]
### 17. Translate between languages
Translate this [source language] code to idiomatic [target language]. Donât do a literal port â use the target languageâs natural patterns. Note any place the translation isnât 1:1 and why.
[paste]
---
## đ Analysis
### 18. Data summary
Hereâs a CSV/dataset. Without inventing anything beyond whatâs in it:
[paste data]
### 19. Document Q&A with citations
Below is a document. Answer my question using ONLY information from it. For every claim, cite the section/paragraph. If the document doesnât answer, say âNot in the document.â
Question: [your question]
### 20. Compare and contrast
Compare [A] and [B] across these dimensions:
Format: a markdown table. Then below the table, give a 3-sentence âwhich to pick whenâ guide.
---
## đŻ Negotiation & people
### 21. Salary negotiation prep
I have a job offer for [role] at [company] for [amount]. I want to negotiate up to [target]. Help me:
I disagree with [decision] from my manager. Help me push back without
damaging the relationship. Draft a Slack message under 200 words that:
- Acknowledges their reasoning genuinely
- States my disagreement specifically
- Proposes a concrete alternative or a way to test
- Leaves room for them to save face if they change their mind
Brainstorm [number] ideas for [topic]. Rules:
- No filtering â include weird, bad, and obvious ones
- Each is one sentence
- Group them into 3-4 categories at the end
- Mark your 3 personal favorites with â
I have an idea: [paste idea]. Don't critique it. Instead, build on it
with 5 "yes, and..." extensions that take it in surprising directions.
Then tell me which of the 5 has the most potential and why.
I want to use this prompt:
<prompt>
[paste your prompt]
</prompt>
It's not getting great results. Critique it as a prompt engineer
and rewrite it. Specifically:
- What's missing (role? context? format? examples?)
- What's confusing or contradictory
- The improved version
Then explain your top 3 changes.
[Your original prompt]
Before you answer, think through this carefully step by step.
Consider at least 3 approaches and pick the best one.
Then give your final answer in a clearly labeled section.
[Task]
Return your answer as JSON matching exactly this schema:
{
"[field_1]": "[type / description]",
"[field_2]": "[type / description]",
...
}
NO prose, NO markdown, NO ```json fences. JSON only.
Before answering, ask me 3 clarifying questions whose answers
would most change your approach. Don't start the actual task
until I respond.
Task: [your task]
[After Claude gives an answer:]
Rate your answer on:
- Specificity (was it generic or tailored?)
- Honesty (did you hedge unnecessarily?)
- Usefulness (could I act on it?)
Then give a v2 that scores higher on the weakest dimension.
You are my long-term thinking partner on [topic]. Here's everything
relevant about me/this project:
<background>
[paste â role, goals, constraints, what's been tried, what hasn't worked]
</background>
For now: just confirm you've absorbed this. From the next message on,
treat all this as shared context. I'll ask follow-ups freely.