Analysis & Research prompts

Produces a structured side-by-side comparison table plus a tailored recommendation — useful whenever a decision-maker needs a quick, honest evaluation of two alternatives.

Compare [OPTION A] and [OPTION B] for someone who needs to [GOAL]. Structure your response as a table with the following rows: cost, ease of use, scalability, key strengths, and key weaknesses. After the table, write a 2–3 sentence recommendation based on the profile of [TARGET USER].

How to use: Fill in the two options, the user's goal, and a brief description of the target user (e.g., 'a solo freelancer with limited budget').

Quickly surfaces the upsides and downsides of any plan or proposal, ideal for early-stage decision reviews.

I am considering the following proposal: [DESCRIBE PROPOSAL]. List the most significant pros and cons of moving forward with this proposal. For each point, briefly explain why it matters. Organize your answer in two clearly labeled sections: Pros and Cons. End with a one-paragraph balanced summary.

How to use: Paste or describe the proposal in plain language; the more specific you are, the more actionable the output.

Applies a weighted scoring matrix to multiple options, making complex multi-criteria decisions transparent and comparable.

I need to choose between the following options: [LIST OPTIONS, ONE PER LINE]. The criteria I care about and their relative importance (1 = low, 5 = high) are:
[CRITERION 1]: [WEIGHT]
[CRITERION 2]: [WEIGHT]
[CRITERION 3]: [WEIGHT]

Score each option on each criterion from 1–10, explain each score in one sentence, calculate a weighted total, and recommend the best option based on the scores. Present results in a table.

How to use: List all viable options and define 3–5 criteria with weights that reflect your real priorities before running the prompt.

Generates a comprehensive SWOT analysis with strategic implications, useful for business planning, product reviews, or strategic pivots.

Perform a thorough SWOT analysis for [SUBJECT — e.g., a business, product, strategy, or idea]. The context is: [BRIEF CONTEXT]. For each quadrant — Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats — provide 4–5 specific, evidence-based points. After the four quadrants, write a 'Strategic Implications' section that identifies the two most important actions suggested by the analysis.

How to use: Add relevant context (industry, stage, competition) to get specific insights rather than generic observations.

Builds the strongest counter-argument to your position so you can stress-test your reasoning and prepare more robust defenses.

My position is: [STATE YOUR POSITION]. I want you to construct the strongest possible version of the opposing argument — a 'steel man' — without straw-manning or weakening it. Include the best evidence, reasoning, and values that support the opposing view. Then, in a separate section, identify which parts of the steel man I should take most seriously when defending my position.

How to use: State your position clearly and specifically; vague positions produce generic steel men.

Applies the 5 Whys framework to drill down to root causes, perfect for post-mortems, quality reviews, or process failures.

A problem has occurred: [DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]. Using the 5 Whys technique, iteratively ask and answer 'Why did this happen?' five times, with each answer becoming the input for the next question. Present the chain clearly, numbered 1–5. Then identify the root cause and suggest two corrective actions that address it directly.

How to use: Describe the observable problem symptom as specifically as possible; include any known contributing factors.

Creates a prioritized risk register for any plan, helping teams anticipate problems before execution begins.

Here is a plan I am about to execute: [DESCRIBE PLAN]. Identify the top 6 risks associated with this plan. For each risk, estimate its likelihood (Low / Medium / High) and potential impact (Low / Medium / High), and suggest one mitigation action. Present the results in a table with columns: Risk, Likelihood, Impact, Mitigation. Then write a brief paragraph on the overall risk profile.

How to use: The more detail you provide about the plan's context, timeline, and stakeholders, the more targeted the risks will be.

Decomposes a hard question into a structured research agenda, useful for researchers, analysts, and anyone tackling ambiguous problems.

I am trying to answer the following complex question: [INSERT COMPLEX QUESTION]. Before attempting an answer, decompose this question into 5–8 smaller sub-questions that must be answered first. For each sub-question, note why it matters and what kind of evidence or reasoning would be needed to answer it. Then briefly indicate which sub-questions are most foundational.

How to use: Use on any question where you feel overwhelmed or unsure where to start; works well for essay planning, research scoping, and policy analysis.

Critically evaluates whether a claim and its source are trustworthy, ideal for fact-checking, academic review, or media literacy.

Below is a claim and its stated source. Evaluate the credibility of the source and the strength of the evidence for the claim.

Claim: [PASTE CLAIM]
Source: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE SOURCE]

Your evaluation should cover: (1) source authority and potential bias, (2) quality of evidence cited, (3) what would make the claim stronger or weaker, and (4) an overall credibility rating of Low / Medium / High with justification.

How to use: Paste the full claim and as much source information as possible (author, publication, date, methodology if known).

Generates three calibrated strategic options across a risk spectrum, helping decision-makers see the full range of approaches before committing.

I am facing the following strategic challenge: [DESCRIBE CHALLENGE]. Generate three distinct strategic approaches to address it: one conservative (low risk, incremental), one moderate (balanced), and one aggressive (high risk, high reward). For each approach, describe: the core idea, key actions required, expected outcomes, and major risks. Conclude with a recommendation based on the context: [CONTEXT — e.g., company size, risk tolerance, timeline].

How to use: Provide enough context about your constraints and goals so the strategies are realistic rather than generic.

Maps out cascading consequences beyond the obvious first-order effects, essential for policy analysis, product decisions, and risk management.

Consider the following decision or action: [DESCRIBE DECISION OR ACTION]. First, list the immediate first-order consequences (what happens directly). Then, for each first-order consequence, identify at least one second-order consequence (what happens as a result of that). Finally, identify any third-order consequences that stand out as particularly important. Highlight any feedback loops or unintended effects.

How to use: Start with a clearly scoped decision; overly broad inputs produce shallow analysis.

Audits any argument for logical flaws and fallacies, useful for reviewing persuasive writing, debates, or proposals before acting on them.

Below is an argument I want you to audit:

[PASTE ARGUMENT]

Identify any logical fallacies, unsupported assumptions, or weak reasoning in the argument. For each issue found: (1) name and briefly define the fallacy or flaw, (2) quote the specific passage where it occurs, and (3) explain why it weakens the argument. After the audit, rate the overall logical soundness: Weak / Moderate / Strong, with a one-paragraph justification.

How to use: Paste the argument verbatim; paraphrasing may lose the nuances that reveal the fallacies.

Runs a prospective failure analysis (pre-mortem) to surface hidden risks before a project begins, not after.

Imagine it is [TIMEFRAME — e.g., 6 months] from now and the following project has completely failed: [DESCRIBE PROJECT]. Working backwards from this assumed failure, generate the 8 most plausible reasons it failed. For each reason, describe: what went wrong, early warning signs that would have been visible, and one preventive action that could have been taken. Use this to highlight the two or three risks the team should address immediately.

How to use: Describe the project in enough detail that the AI can generate context-specific failure modes, not just generic ones.

Reconciles contradictory research to produce a nuanced synthesis, valuable for literature reviews, policy briefs, and evidence-based decisions.

Below are summaries of multiple research findings on the topic of [TOPIC] that appear to conflict with each other:

[PASTE SUMMARIES OR FINDINGS]

Analyze why these findings might conflict. Consider differences in methodology, sample populations, timeframes, definitions, or context. Then synthesize a nuanced position that accounts for all the findings, and explain what conditions or caveats determine which finding applies in which situation.

How to use: Paste at least two clearly conflicting findings; include methodological details if available for deeper analysis.

Applies probabilistic expected value reasoning to a decision under uncertainty, making implicit assumptions about likelihood and payoff explicit.

I am deciding whether to [DESCRIBE DECISION]. Help me reason through this using expected value thinking. First, identify the two or three most likely outcomes for each option I am considering. For each outcome, ask me to estimate (or estimate yourself based on context) a rough probability and a value/payoff. Then calculate or estimate the expected value of each option and recommend which to choose. Also flag any outcomes that are low probability but catastrophic enough to warrant special attention.

How to use: Provide rough probability estimates if you have them; otherwise ask the AI to estimate from context and adjust as needed.

Provides a structured, multi-dimensional viability assessment of any business model, useful for entrepreneurs, investors, or internal reviewers.

Act as an experienced business analyst. Evaluate the viability of the following business model: [DESCRIBE BUSINESS MODEL]. Structure your evaluation around five dimensions: (1) value proposition clarity, (2) target market size and accessibility, (3) revenue model sustainability, (4) competitive differentiation, and (5) key assumptions that must hold true. Rate each dimension Red / Yellow / Green and provide a 2–3 sentence explanation per dimension. Close with an overall viability verdict and the single biggest risk.

How to use: Describe the business model in enough detail to cover who the customer is, what problem is solved, and how money is made.

Surfaces and stress-tests hidden assumptions behind any claim, essential for rigorous analysis and avoiding false confidence.

The following belief or claim is under discussion: [STATE BELIEF OR CLAIM]. List all the underlying assumptions that must be true for this belief to be correct. For each assumption, rate how contestable it is (Low / Medium / High) and note what evidence would confirm or refute it. Identify the single assumption whose failure would most quickly invalidate the entire belief.

How to use: Works best with a specific, falsifiable claim rather than a broad opinion; use it before making high-stakes decisions.

Makes opportunity costs concrete and explicit so you can confirm you are choosing the highest-value use of limited resources.

I am considering committing resources to: [DESCRIBE CHOSEN OPTION — time, money, or attention]. My realistic alternatives are: [LIST 2–3 ALTERNATIVES]. Analyze the opportunity cost of choosing the primary option over each alternative. For each alternative foregone, describe: what value would be lost, whether that value can be recovered later, and how significant the loss is given my stated priorities: [STATE YOUR PRIORITIES OR GOALS]. End with a summary judgment on whether the opportunity cost is justified.

How to use: Be honest about your real alternatives; listing only weak alternatives will produce a biased analysis in favor of your chosen option.

Produces a comparative policy analysis across two jurisdictions, valuable for researchers, advocates, or policy professionals studying regulatory design.

Compare how [JURISDICTION A] and [JURISDICTION B] approach the regulation of [POLICY AREA — e.g., data privacy, gig work, AI]. For each jurisdiction, summarize: the core legal framework, the entities it covers, enforcement mechanisms, and notable strengths or criticisms. Then analyze the key trade-offs each approach makes (e.g., innovation vs. protection, uniformity vs. flexibility). Conclude with a paragraph on what policymakers in a third context could learn from both.

How to use: Name specific jurisdictions (e.g., EU, California, Singapore) and a concrete policy area for a focused, useful comparison.

Diagnoses the most relevant cognitive biases affecting a specific decision and provides targeted debiasing techniques.

I am about to make the following decision: [DESCRIBE DECISION AND HOW YOU ARE LEANING]. Identify the cognitive biases most likely to be distorting my thinking in this situation. For each bias: name it, briefly define it, explain specifically how it might be influencing my reasoning here, and suggest one concrete debiasing technique. Focus on the 4–5 biases most relevant to this situation rather than producing an exhaustive list.

How to use: Share your current reasoning and the direction you are leaning so the AI can identify biases in your actual thinking, not just generic ones.

Rigorously evaluates how well-supported a claim is and identifies what additional evidence would strengthen the case.

Evaluate the strength of evidence for the following claim: [STATE CLAIM]. Use a structured framework: (1) What types of evidence would ideally support this claim? (2) What evidence currently exists (based on your knowledge)? (3) How well does the existing evidence match the ideal? (4) What are the most important evidence gaps? Rate the overall evidential support as: Insufficient / Suggestive / Moderate / Strong, and explain what it would take to move the rating up one level.

How to use: Use for claims you are about to act on or cite; pair with the source credibility prompt for deeper analysis.

Runs a rapid four-dimensional feasibility check on any idea or initiative before significant resources are invested.

I have the following idea: [DESCRIBE IDEA]. Do a rapid feasibility check across four dimensions: (1) Technical feasibility — can it be built or done with existing knowledge or technology? (2) Economic feasibility — is it likely to be cost-effective? (3) Operational feasibility — can it realistically be implemented and sustained? (4) Time feasibility — is the timeline [DESIRED TIMELINE] realistic? For each dimension, give a simple verdict (Feasible / Uncertain / Infeasible) and a 2–3 sentence rationale. Summarize the biggest feasibility risk overall.

How to use: Include your constraints (budget, team size, timeline) so the feasibility check reflects your actual situation.

Extracts meaningful patterns, flags anomalies, and translates data into actionable insights for a specific audience.

Below is a set of data or results from [DESCRIBE DATA SOURCE OR STUDY]: 

[PASTE DATA OR SUMMARY]

Analyze this data for the following: (1) the 3–5 most significant patterns or trends, (2) any anomalies or outliers worth flagging, (3) what the data does and does not tell us (limitations), and (4) two or three actionable implications for [DECISION-MAKER OR AUDIENCE]. Present your analysis in clearly labeled sections.

How to use: Paste summary statistics, tables, or narrative results; the more structured the data you provide, the more precise the analysis.

Rigorously challenges a recommendation to find its blind spots before it is adopted, ideal for high-stakes decisions or advisory reviews.

The following recommendation has been made: [STATE RECOMMENDATION]. I want you to stress-test it rigorously. Identify: (1) the three most critical assumptions it rests on and how likely each is to hold, (2) the scenarios under which this recommendation would fail or backfire, (3) any important stakeholders or factors that seem to have been overlooked, and (4) one alternative recommendation that would be more robust under the failure scenarios identified. Do not validate the recommendation — focus on finding genuine weaknesses.

How to use: Provide the full recommendation, not just a summary, including any stated rationale so the AI can test the reasoning itself.

Applies a structured prioritization framework to any list of options, making ranking decisions transparent and systematic.

I have the following list of [OPTIONS / TASKS / INITIATIVES]: 
[PASTE LIST]

Prioritize them using the [FRAMEWORK — e.g., Impact vs. Effort matrix, MoSCoW method, ICE scoring]. For each item, apply the framework criteria, assign scores or categories, and rank the items. Explain the reasoning behind the top three ranked items and flag any items that are difficult to categorize or require more information before prioritizing. Present the output as a ranked table.

How to use: Choose a framework that matches your context (e.g., ICE for growth ideas, MoSCoW for product features) and list all items you want ranked.