Strategy prompts built around real decisions.

Design a fair comparison of ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini for [TASK]. Representative inputs: [REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Acceptance criteria: [ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA]. Verified cost and product data: [COST DATA].

Create an identical test harness: system instructions, task prompt, context, tools, permissions, output format, time limit, retry policy, and human-review process. Include easy, typical, difficult, incomplete, and edge-case tasks.

Define a weighted scorecard for acceptance rate, correctness, evidence handling, instruction following, consistency, editing time, latency, cost per accepted result, and severe-error risk. Explain how to handle nondeterminism and model updates. Finish with a decision table and routing policy, but do not recommend a winner until real results are supplied.

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.

Act as a decision analyst. Evaluate [DECISION] in [CONTEXT] using [SUCCESS CRITERIA] and [CONSTRAINTS]. Restate the decision and question whether it is framed correctly. Identify assumptions, stakeholders, opportunity costs, dependencies, and second-order effects. Compare at least three realistic options using the same criteria. Include a pre-mortem, signals that would change the recommendation, and the smallest reversible experiment to run next. Label uncertainty clearly.

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 SWOT for [ORGANIZATION OR PROJECT] pursuing [OBJECTIVE] over [TIME HORIZON], using only [EVIDENCE]. Keep strengths and weaknesses internal; opportunities and threats external. For each item provide evidence, strategic relevance, confidence, and implication. Remove generic statements that could describe any organization. Then identify the most important cross-combinations: use a strength, repair a weakness, capture an opportunity, and reduce a threat.

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.

Develop three to four plausible scenarios for [DECISION AREA] over [TIME HORIZON] using [CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES] and [KNOWN TRENDS]. Give each scenario a coherent causal logic, not just an optimistic or pessimistic label. For each, describe conditions, leading indicators, stakeholder effects, opportunities, risks, and strategic implications. Identify no-regret actions, options to preserve, and triggers for changing course. Do not assign unsupported probabilities.

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 [INITIATIVES] against [STRATEGIC GOALS] under [CONSTRAINTS], using [EVIDENCE]. Define scoring criteria and weights before evaluation. Assess expected value, strategic fit, confidence, effort, time to learning, risk, dependencies, and reversibility. Show the reasoning and sensitivity to different weights. Return invest, test, sequence later, and stop groups. Explain the opportunity cost of the recommended portfolio.

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.

Facilitate a pre-mortem for [PLAN] intended to achieve [OBJECTIVE], considering [CONSTRAINTS] and [TEAM CONTEXT]. Assume the plan failed and generate plausible causes across customer, strategy, execution, people, technology, finance, timing, and external factors. For each cause record likelihood range, impact, earliest observable signal, prevention, contingency, and owner. Prioritize the risks that are both consequential and actionable. Avoid dramatic but irrelevant possibilities.

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.

Outline an operating model to deliver [STRATEGY] within [SCOPE], starting from [CURRENT STATE] and [CONSTRAINTS]. Define required capabilities, key value streams, roles, decision rights, handoffs, information flows, systems, governance rhythms, metrics, and escalation. Highlight gaps between current and target state. Propose a phased transition with assumptions, dependencies, and leading indicators. Avoid generic organization-chart recommendations.

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.

Analyze [COMPETITOR EVIDENCE] in relation to [OUR STRATEGY] and [MARKET QUESTION]. Separate directly observed facts, reasonable interpretations, alternative explanations, and unknowns. Compare customer promise, target segment, route to market, capabilities, trade-offs, and visible moves only where evidence exists. Identify implications for our choices, but do not infer private financials, intent, or performance. Finish with questions and ethical evidence sources to investigate.

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 [STRATEGIC DIRECTION] into a 90-day plan from [STARTING STATE], considering [TEAM CAPACITY] and [DEPENDENCIES]. Define three to five outcomes, success and guardrail metrics, key decisions, experiments, capability work, owners, dependencies, and risks. Sequence work into days 1–30, 31–60, and 61–90. Include weekly review questions, stop conditions, and what is explicitly out of scope.

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.