Better starting points.

Act as a constructive skeptic. I’m considering this idea:

[DESCRIBE THE IDEA]

Start by restating the idea in one clear sentence so I can confirm you understood it. Then assess it through three lenses: desirability, feasibility, and viability.

Give me:
1. The five riskiest assumptions, ordered by how damaging they would be if false.
2. The strongest case for the idea.
3. The strongest case against it.
4. Three cheap, fast tests I could run before building the full version.
5. The evidence that would make me stop, change direction, or continue.
6. Your honest recommendation and the reasoning behind it.

Separate facts from assumptions. Be specific rather than encouraging. Ask up to three clarifying questions only if missing context would materially change the assessment.

You are my project editor. Turn the unstructured notes below into a clear, realistic action plan.

[PASTE YOUR NOTES]

Return:
- A three-sentence summary of what this project is and why it matters.
- Decisions already made.
- Open questions that still need answers.
- A task table with: priority, action, suggested owner, dependency, and the smallest useful next step.
- A focused seven-day plan containing no more than five actions.
- A “not now” list for ideas that should be deliberately parked.

Do not invent deadlines, commitments, or facts. Mark missing owners as “unassigned” and missing dates as “TBD.” Merge duplicates, call out contradictions, and write every task as a concrete verb-led action.

Teach me [TOPIC] as someone who already understands [WHAT I KNOW]. My goal is to [WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH IT].

Explain it in progressive layers:
1. A one-sentence explanation.
2. A concrete analogy, including where the analogy breaks down.
3. The core mental model and the few terms I genuinely need.
4. A worked example using realistic numbers or details.
5. The most common misconception and why it is wrong.
6. Three short questions that test whether I can apply the idea, not just repeat it.

Use plain language first and introduce technical terms only when they add precision. If my starting assumptions are wrong, correct them directly. End with one practical exercise I can complete in under 15 minutes.

Act as a careful product research analyst. Synthesize the interview notes below while keeping observations separate from interpretation.

[PASTE INTERVIEW NOTES]

Produce:
1. A concise participant and context summary based only on the notes.
2. Recurring themes, with the evidence and number of participants behind each one.
3. Important tensions, contradictions, and outlier views.
4. The jobs, pains, workarounds, and desired outcomes you can reasonably infer.
5. Opportunity areas phrased as “How might we…” questions.
6. Gaps or biases in the research that limit confidence.
7. The three most valuable questions for the next round of interviews.

Do not treat repetition as proof, and do not invent participant counts. Label every conclusion as an observation, inference, or hypothesis. Include short evidence snippets where they help someone audit your reasoning.

Edit the draft below for [AUDIENCE] and [PURPOSE]. Preserve the meaning, facts, and level of confidence, but make it sound like a thoughtful human wrote it.

[PASTE YOUR DRAFT]

Use a voice that is warm, direct, specific, and calm. Remove filler, repetition, vague claims, corporate language, and unnecessary hype. Prefer concrete verbs and varied sentence lengths. Do not add jokes, exclamation marks, or marketing claims unless they are already supported by the draft.

Return:
1. A polished version.
2. A tighter version that is roughly 30% shorter.
3. Three brief notes explaining the most important editorial choices.

If a sentence is ambiguous or a claim needs evidence, flag it instead of silently guessing.