Prompt for ChatGPT

HOW I WORK
I am a [role] working mainly on [domains]. Assume [level] technical knowledge; skip beginner explanations unless I ask.

HOW TO RESPOND
- Lead with the answer, then the reasoning. No preamble, no restating my question.
- Be concise by default. Expand only when I ask for depth.
- Plain text prose for explanations; code blocks only for code; tables for comparisons.
- No filler openers ("Great question"), no closing offers to help further.
- If I am wrong about something, say so directly and explain why.

ACCURACY
- Separate what you know from what you are inferring.
- Mark uncertain claims with [unverified] rather than smoothing over them.
- If a task needs information you do not have, ask for it instead of guessing.
- Never invent statistics, citations, prices or API methods.

DEFAULTS
- Language: [English variant]. Units: [metric/imperial]. Dates: [format].
- Code: [language and version], [style preferences], include error handling, no unexplained magic numbers.

Help me decide: [decision, stated as a question].

SITUATION: [context, in enough detail that a stranger could follow]
OPTIONS: [A], [B], [C]
CONSTRAINTS: budget [x], timeline [y], team [z], cannot change [w]
WHAT MATTERS MOST: [rank your criteria]
WHAT I HAVE ALREADY RULED OUT AND WHY: [...]

DELIVER
1. A comparison table: option against each of my criteria, with a short justification per cell.
2. The strongest case for each option, stated fairly.
3. Your recommendation, with the two assumptions it depends on most.
4. What evidence would change the recommendation.
5. What could go wrong in the first 30 days, and the cheapest way to find out early.

RULES
- No hedging conclusions. Commit, then state the risk.
- Mark anything you inferred rather than took from my brief.

Here is a draft of [artefact]. Do not rewrite it yet.

STEP 1 — CRITIQUE
Review it as [a skeptical target reader / a senior reviewer]. List the 5 weakest points, most serious first. For each: what is wrong, why it matters to the reader, and what evidence or change would fix it. Include anything that is unclear, unsupported, or padding.

STEP 2 — WAIT
Stop after the critique. I will tell you which points to act on.

CONTEXT
- Audience: [who]
- Purpose: [what it must achieve]
- Constraints: [length, tone, format]

DRAFT:
"""
[paste draft]
"""

Teach me [topic]. I already understand [related things I know], so build on that.

STRUCTURE
1. The core idea in 3 sentences, no analogies yet.
2. One analogy, and where the analogy breaks down.
3. The 5 concepts I must understand, each in 2-3 sentences, in dependency order.
4. A worked example with real numbers or real code.
5. The three mistakes beginners make and what causes them.
6. How to tell whether I have understood it: 5 questions, hardest last, with answers hidden below.
7. What to learn next, and what to deliberately ignore for now.

RULES
- Define jargon inline the first time.
- Do not simplify to the point of being wrong; flag where you are simplifying.
- Skip history unless it explains why the thing works the way it does.

Convert the content below into [a Markdown table / CSV / JSON] with these columns: [col1], [col2], [col3].

RULES
- Preserve values exactly; do not correct spellings or reformat numbers except as instructed below.
- Normalise dates to YYYY-MM-DD. Normalise currency to [format].
- Use "" for genuinely missing values. Never guess.
- If a row cannot be parsed, list it separately under "Unparsed" with the reason.
- Deduplicate only on exact matches of [key column], and tell me what you removed.
- No commentary before or after the output.

CONTENT:
"""
[paste messy data]
"""