Productivity prompts built around real decisions.

Design a reusable prompt system for [RECURRING TASK], used by [USERS]. Typical inputs: [INPUTS]. Required output: [OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS]. Known failures: [KNOWN FAILURES].

Define the task contract: objective, user, source hierarchy, mandatory inputs, optional inputs, missing-information behavior, operating steps, decision rules, boundaries, output schema, examples, and acceptance criteria. Create the master prompt with clearly named variables and instructions that remain portable across ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini.

Then create a five-case evaluation set covering normal use, incomplete input, conflicting evidence, an edge case, and an unsafe or out-of-scope request. Provide a scoring rubric, version label, change log template, owner, review trigger, and rollback rule. Do not optimize for one polished demonstration.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Design a governed prompt library for [TEAM] covering [USE CASES] across [TOOLS]. Risk levels: [RISK LEVELS]. Current prompts or storage: [CURRENT PROMPTS].

Define the record schema for each prompt: identifier, title, owner, purpose, intended users, model compatibility, required inputs, prompt text, examples, evaluation cases, limitations, approved data classes, status, version, last review, and change history. Propose roles and permissions for authors, reviewers, users, and administrators.

Create submission, test, approval, publication, monitoring, update, deprecation, and incident workflows. Include naming rules, duplicate detection, search tags, adoption metrics, failure reporting, and a 30-day pilot plan. Keep controls proportional to risk and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Create an evaluation suite for this prompt: [PROMPT]. Task: [TASK]. Definition of a good output: [GOOD OUTPUT]. Known failure modes: [FAILURE MODES]. Models or versions to compare: [MODELS].

Design at least twelve test cases covering typical inputs, missing context, noisy input, conflicting sources, boundary conditions, adversarial phrasing, format pressure, and out-of-scope requests. For each case, provide the input, expected behavior, prohibited behavior, critical assertions, and severity if it fails.

Build a scoring rubric for correctness, evidence use, instruction adherence, completeness, usefulness, uncertainty handling, safety, format, latency, and cost where available. Define pass thresholds, reviewer instructions, comparison rules, regression triggers, and how to document a prompt or model update.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

You are an operations coordinator. Convert [NOTES] into an action plan for [TEAM], considering [DEADLINE CONTEXT]. Separate confirmed decisions, proposed ideas, and unanswered questions. Return a concise summary followed by actions in priority order with suggested owner, due-date placeholder, dependency, completion evidence, and risk. Do not assign commitments that the notes do not support. Add a short list of clarifications needed before the plan is final.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Create a realistic weekly plan using priorities [PRIORITIES], fixed commitments [FIXED COMMITMENTS], available hours [AVAILABLE HOURS], and constraints [CONSTRAINTS]. Rank outcomes by importance and urgency. Estimate work blocks with buffers, identify what should be deferred, and protect time for deep work and administration. Return a day-by-day plan, a short not-doing list, risks to the schedule, and a recovery rule if one major task slips.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Draft a one-page decision memo for [DECISION]. Context: [CONTEXT]. Options: [OPTIONS]. Evidence: [EVIDENCE]. Include the decision owner, deadline, success criteria, constraints, option comparison, recommendation, rationale, key risks, dissenting view, and what would change the decision. Separate known facts from assumptions. Finish with immediate next actions and a date or condition for review.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Create a [DURATION] meeting agenda for [ATTENDEES] with goal [MEETING GOAL] and context [CONTEXT]. State the decisions or outputs required. Separate pre-read information from live discussion. For each agenda item include owner, purpose, timebox, preparation, and expected output. Add opening alignment, a parking-lot rule, decision capture, action assignment, and criteria for canceling the meeting if preparation is incomplete.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Create a concise project update for [AUDIENCE] covering [REPORTING PERIOD] from [PROJECT NOTES]. Structure it as overall status with evidence, outcomes completed, work in progress, blockers and impact, changes since the last update, risks, decisions needed with deadline, and next actions with owners. Do not turn every activity into progress. Flag missing metrics or unclear ownership rather than guessing.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Turn [PROCESS NOTES] into a standard operating procedure for [USER ROLE] using [TOOLS]. Include purpose, scope, prerequisites, roles, inputs, numbered steps, decision points, expected output, verification, exceptions, escalation path, records to retain, and revision owner. Highlight safety or operational risks: [RISKS]. Do not fill missing critical steps with guesses; mark them as questions for the process owner.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Prioritize [BACKLOG] against [GOALS] using criteria [CRITERIA] and capacity [CAPACITY]. Normalize every item into a clear outcome. Score impact, urgency, confidence, effort, risk, and dependency using a defined scale. Show the reasoning and missing evidence for each score. Return now, next, later, and decline groups, plus the trade-offs created by the proposed sequence. Do not treat a numerical score as certainty.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Create a handoff document for [NEW OWNER] by [HANDOFF DATE] using [PROJECT MATERIAL]. Include purpose, current state, stakeholders, key decisions and rationale, completed work, open work, next three actions, deadlines, dependencies, risks, known issues, recurring routines, required access without exposing credentials, file locations, and questions to ask. Mark information that may be outdated and identify the best source of truth.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.