Prompt Library

Generate three distinct strategic approaches for [YOUR TASK]:
1. [Approach A philosophy]
2. [Approach B philosophy]
3. [Approach C philosophy]

Evaluate each approach for:
- [Criterion 1]
- [Criterion 2]
- [Criterion 3]

Then synthesize the golden path combining the best elements of each approach.

You are running a 3-round competition:

ROUND 1 - Competing Drafts:
- Persona 1 [role]: Create your version of [TASK]
- Persona 2 [role]: Create your version of [TASK]

ROUND 2 - Brutal Critique:
- Persona 3 [critic role]: Critique both drafts
  * What's missing?
  * What feels inauthentic?
  * What would make this exceptional?

ROUND 3 - Collaboration:
- Personas 1 and 2: Read the feedback
- Work together to produce ONE final version

Show all rounds and the final result.

I want to improve this prompt for better AI responses:

[YOUR RAW PROMPT]

Analyze it and provide:
1. What's unclear or ambiguous
2. What context is missing
3. What constraints should be added
4. A rewritten version using best practices

Consider:
- Persona/role definition
- Clear output format
- Specific constraints
- Examples if needed

Generate three approaches for [YOUR TECHNICAL TASK]:
1. [Approach 1 name]
2. [Approach 2 name]
3. [Approach 3 name]

For each approach, evaluate:
- Security implications
- Scalability
- Implementation complexity
- Maintenance burden
- Performance characteristics

Then recommend the best approach for:
- Team size: [X]
- Timeline: [Y]
- Scale: [Z users/requests]
- Constraints: [list]

Review this code from three expert perspectives:

CODE:
```[language]
[YOUR CODE]
```

Perspective 1 - Security Researcher:
- Identify vulnerabilities
- Potential attack vectors
- Security best practices violated

Perspective 2 - Performance Engineer:
- Performance bottlenecks
- Optimization opportunities
- Scalability concerns

Perspective 3 - Maintainability Expert:
- Code clarity and readability
- Design patterns used/violated
- Long-term maintenance burden

Then synthesize: Top 3 changes to make and why.

Analyze this bug from three perspectives:

BUG DESCRIPTION:
[Describe the bug, error messages, steps to reproduce]

CODE CONTEXT:
```[language]
[Relevant code]
```

Perspective 1 - Systems Engineer:
- Infrastructure issues
- Environment problems
- Configuration errors

Perspective 2 - Application Developer:
- Logic errors
- State management issues
- Edge cases

Perspective 3 - User Experience:
- How does this impact users?
- Workarounds available?
- Communication strategy

Synthesize:
1. Most likely root cause
2. Recommended fix
3. Prevention strategy

Create an email response using Tree of Thought:

CONTEXT:
[Describe the situation and email you're responding to]

Generate three strategic approaches:
1. Direct & Transparent: Clear facts, minimal fluff
2. Empathy First: Acknowledge feelings, build trust
3. Solution Focused: Skip the problem, emphasize fixes

Evaluate each for:
- Relationship impact
- Likelihood to resolve issue
- Time to resolution

Then write ONE email combining the best elements.

You are three content strategists:

Strategist 1 - SEO Expert:
- Focus on search intent and keywords
- Structure for featured snippets
- Optimize for rankings

Strategist 2 - Storyteller:
- Focus on narrative flow
- Emotional engagement
- Compelling hooks

Strategist 3 - Subject Matter Expert:
- Focus on depth and accuracy
- Technical correctness
- Comprehensive coverage

Topic: [YOUR TOPIC]
Audience: [YOUR AUDIENCE]
Goal: [YOUR GOAL]

Each create an outline. Then critique each other's outlines and synthesize one master outline.

Analyze [TOPIC] from three expert perspectives:

Expert 1 - [Role 1]:
[What they would focus on]

Expert 2 - [Role 2]:
[What they would focus on]

Expert 3 - [Role 3]:
[What they would focus on]

Then synthesize:
1. Key insights from each perspective
2. Where perspectives align
3. Where they conflict and why
4. Recommended action based on synthesis

I want to red team this idea/plan:

[YOUR IDEA/PLAN]

Attack it from these angles:
1. Technical Feasibility: Why won't this work technically?
2. Business Viability: Why won't this make money/sense?
3. User Adoption: Why won't people use this?
4. Competition: Why will competitors win?
5. Execution: Why will we fail to execute?

Be brutally honest. Find the real weaknesses.

Then: Given these weaknesses, how should the idea be modified?

Explain [CONCEPT] at three levels:

Level 1 - ELI5 (Explain Like I'm 5):
Use simple analogies and everyday examples

Level 2 - Intermediate:
Introduce technical terms with context

Level 3 - Expert:
Full technical detail and nuance

Then: Show when you'd use each level of explanation.

I want to deeply understand [TOPIC].

Instead of explaining it to me, guide me to discover it myself using the Socratic method:

1. Ask me a foundational question
2. Based on my answer, ask a follow-up that challenges or extends my thinking
3. Continue this process
4. When I reach a correct understanding, confirm and connect to the bigger picture

Start with your first question.