The prompt
Copy it whole, replace every bracketed variable, then paste it as your first message.
You are my drafting partner for a workplace document. I direct, you propose, I judge, I own what is circulated. Read everything before you reply.
## 1. The document
- Type: [DOCUMENT TYPE]
- The decision the reader must make: [THE DECISION]
- Reader: [READER]
- My position and confidence: [YOUR POSITION]
- Length ceiling: [LENGTH]
- House style: [HOUSE STYLE]
## 2. Material (the only source of facts)
Findings, numbers, and sources, with where each came from:
[FINDINGS AND NUMBERS]
Risks and likely objections:
[RISKS AND OBJECTIONS]
Fact rules:
- Every figure, date, finding, quote, and source in the document comes from the material above. Never supply a number, benchmark, industry statistic, or example from outside it.
- Where a claim needs support the material does not contain, write [VERIFY: what is needed] and continue. Do not soften the claim to avoid the tag; tag it.
- Keep each figure's provenance available: when I ask "sources", list every number in the document and where it came from in the material.
- Do not round, convert, or combine numbers unless I ask. If a calculation is needed, show it in a [CALC: ...] tag for me to check.
## 3. Structure rules
- The structure follows the decision, not the work. The reader should be able to decide after the first page.
- Order: the recommendation and what it costs; the reasons, strongest first, each with its evidence; the risks and what mitigates them, taken seriously; what happens if we do nothing; what I need from the reader and by when. Background goes last or in an appendix.
- Every heading states the point of its section ("Manual triage costs 11 hours a week"), not its topic ("Current state").
- One claim per paragraph, with its evidence in the same paragraph.
- Tables only for comparisons of three or more items on two or more dimensions. Otherwise prose.
- Address the reader's likely objection where it arises, not in a separate FAQ.
- No executive summary yet. I will ask for it after the body is approved.
Banned: "leverage", "synergy", "robust", "going forward", "it is important to note", "in order to", "as mentioned above", passive constructions that hide who did or decided something, adjectives in place of numbers ("significant", "substantial"), bullet lists of more than five items, any sentence that would be true in a different organization's document.
## 4. How we work
Before drafting, ask me up to 3 questions whose answers would change the document. Also tell me, in one line, which of my reasons has the weakest support in the material.
When I say "draft": one draft of the body, no summary, then stop. No commentary.
When I say "summary": write the executive summary from the approved body only, under 150 words, recommendation first, with the two or three numbers that matter. Do not introduce anything not in the body.
When I say "change only X": return only the changed sentences marked OLD and NEW.
When I say "sources": the provenance list described in section 2.
When I say "objection: [objection]": do not rewrite. Tell me in three lines whether the document already answers it, where, and how strongly.
Never claim to have verified anything.
## 5. Begin
Reply with: one sentence stating the decision the document asks for and your understanding of my recommendation; one line on the weakest-supported reason; your questions, numbered. Do not draft.- Best for
- Internal reports, project updates, and post-mortems
- Proposals and business cases that ask for a decision or budget
- Memos and briefing notes for someone senior with little time
- Turning analysis notes, spreadsheets, and meeting minutes into a readable document
- Not for
- Documents containing confidential, regulated, or personal data you may not paste into a third-party tool
- Legal, medical, or financial documents that require professional sign-off. Use the prompt for structure only, and have the content reviewed by the right person
- Slide decks. The structure principles transfer, but the prompt's output is prose
Workplace documents fail in a predictable way: they are organized around the work that was done rather than the decision the reader has to make. AI assistance makes this worse by default, because the model's idea of a report is a template, with a background section, a methodology section, findings, and a recommendations list, each filled with confident general sentences.
This prompt starts from the reader and the decision. It asks what the document is for, what the reader will do with it, and what they already believe, then it builds the structure backward from that. It forbids the model from supplying numbers, and it refuses to write the executive summary until the body exists, because a summary written first is a guess that the body then has to justify.
It is also built for review chains. Documents at work are read by people who were not the intended reader, so it keeps claims traceable and marks every gap.
Variables
What to put in each bracket. Required ones are marked. Thin answers here are the usual cause of generic output.
[DOCUMENT TYPE]RequiredWhat it is and roughly how long.
ExampleA four-page proposal to replace our ticketing tool
[THE DECISION]RequiredWhat the reader has to decide, approve, or do after reading. One sentence.
ExampleApprove a migration to a new ticketing tool in Q1, at a one-time cost and a change in the support team's workflow
[READER]RequiredWho decides, what they already believe, what they care about, how much time they have.
ExampleThe COO. Believes the current tool is fine because she never uses it. Cares about support headcount and customer complaints. Will read the first page and skim the rest
[YOUR POSITION]RequiredWhat you recommend and how confident you are. If you have no position, say so. The document becomes an options paper.
ExampleMigrate. Confident on the cost side; less sure the team will adopt it without a dedicated two weeks
[FINDINGS AND NUMBERS]RequiredEvery figure, finding, quote, and source the document may use, with where each came from. The only source of facts.
ExampleTicket volume by month from the dashboard; average resolution time; three quotes from the support team survey; vendor pricing from the two quotes we got; the hours lost to manual triage from the time study
[RISKS AND OBJECTIONS]RequiredWhat could go wrong and what the reader is likely to push back on.
ExampleMigration during a busy quarter; the team's attachment to the old tool; the vendor is small
[HOUSE STYLE]Formatting and tone rules in your organization, plus a sample paragraph from a document that was well received.
ExampleHeadings in sentence case, numbers as figures, no first person plural, sample paragraph from last quarter's post-mortem
[LENGTH]A page or word ceiling.
ExampleUnder 1,600 words including the summary
Why it is built this way
Each block does one job. Knowing the job lets you shorten or adapt the prompt without breaking it.
Decision, reader, position
Three variables that most workplace documents never state explicitly, and the three that determine everything about structure. Naming what the reader already believes is what makes the objections section real.
Material with provenance
Asking for where each number came from, up front, makes the 'sources' check possible later and discourages the model from treating any figure as free to adjust.
No rounding, no combining, [CALC] tags
Models change numbers in small ways while rephrasing: a 10.8 becomes 'about 11', two figures get added. Forbidding it and tagging calculations keeps arithmetic where you can check it.
Structure follows the decision
The explicit order (recommendation, reasons, risks, do-nothing, ask) is the one that lets a busy reader stop after a page. Stated as a rule because the model's default is chronological.
Headings as claims, objections inline
A reader skimming headings should get the argument. Handling objections where they arise reads as confidence. A separate FAQ reads as defensiveness.
Summary written last, from the body
A summary drafted first becomes a promise the body has to keep. Writing it last, under a word limit, from approved text, makes it a true summary.
The 'objection' move
Lets you test the document against the pushback you expect without triggering a rewrite. The answer tells you whether to strengthen a section or accept the gap.
Example run
A representative first response, with the input summarized. Your results will differ by model and material.
Filled for the ticketing tool proposal: a COO who thinks the current tool is fine, a migrate recommendation with uncertainty about adoption, ticket volumes and resolution times from the dashboard, the time study, two vendor quotes, and the busy-quarter risk.
The document asks the COO to approve a Q1 migration to a new ticketing tool at a one-time cost, and I understand you recommend it, confident on cost and less confident on team adoption. Weakest support: the claim that customer complaints will fall. The material has complaint counts but nothing linking them to the tool rather than to volume or staffing. 1. The time study gives 11 hours a week lost to manual triage. Over what period was it measured, and by whom? The COO will ask. 2. Do you want the adoption risk stated as plainly as you stated it to me? Doing so makes the recommendation more credible but gives her a reason to delay. 3. Is "do nothing" genuinely an option, or is the current vendor's contract ending? If it is ending, the document is about which tool, not whether.
All three questions changed the document. The contract was ending in March, which turned a 'whether' proposal into a 'which' proposal and cut a page. The complaint claim was dropped rather than tagged, because the writer agreed the link was not there. The adoption risk was stated plainly, with a proposed two-week overlap as mitigation.
Follow-up prompts
The second turn is where vibe writing happens. These are the short messages that keep the session moving.
After answering, to get the body
Answers: [YOUR ANSWERS]. Draft.
After approving the body
Summary.
Before circulating
Sources.
To test against expected pushback
Objection: [THE OBJECTION YOU EXPECT, IN THE READER'S WORDS].
When a section is organized around the work rather than the point
The section '[HEADING]' describes what was done. Change only that section: lead with the finding, give the evidence, cut the process unless it affects confidence in the finding. New heading as a claim. OLD and NEW for the heading and first paragraph.
When it goes wrong
Symptoms you will actually see, the usual cause, and the correction that works.
An industry benchmark or 'studies show' sentence appears.
- Cause
- The argument needed external support and the model supplied the shape of it.
- Fix
- Run 'sources'. Delete anything that traces to nothing. If you want a benchmark, find it yourself and add it to the material with its citation.
A figure is slightly different from your material.
- Cause
- Rounding or combining during a rewrite.
- Fix
- Run 'sources' after every substantive edit, not just at the end. Compare each number by eye. Add 'do not change any figure, even to round' as a reminder if it recurs.
The recommendation is hedged into an options list.
- Cause
- Your position variable expressed uncertainty, and the model generalized it into no position.
- Fix
- Separate the two: 'Recommend X. Confidence: high on cost, medium on adoption, and say so in the risks section.' Re-draft the opening only.
The document is correct and nobody will read it.
- Cause
- Length ceiling too generous, or background crept to the front.
- Fix
- Cut the ceiling by a third. Move background to an appendix with 'change only the order'. Ask for 'objection: I do not have time to read this' and act on the answer.
Before you publish
The prompt cannot do these. You can.
- Every number matches your source, to the decimal. Check the 'sources' list against the original material yourself.
- The recommendation is one you will stand behind in the meeting where this is discussed. The document carries your name, not the assistant's.
- Nothing confidential was pasted that your organization's policy prohibits. If you summarized sensitive material to avoid pasting it, check the summary did not distort it.
- The reader's likely objection is answered in the document, honestly. If the honest answer weakens the case, the case was weak.
- If your organization expects disclosure of AI assistance in documents, follow it. If it has no policy, consider telling your reviewer. It costs nothing and protects you.
Questions
Can I paste a spreadsheet into the material section?
Paste the figures you intend to use, with labels and where they came from, rather than the whole sheet. A full export invites the model to pick its own numbers. And check whether the data is something you are permitted to put into the tool at all.
What if I genuinely have no recommendation?
Say so in the position variable. The structure changes: the document becomes an options paper, leading with the decision criteria, then each option against them, then what you would need to know to recommend. Tell the assistant that explicitly.
Why is the executive summary written last?
Because a summary is a claim about what the document shows. Written first, it becomes a target the body is bent toward. Written last, from approved text, under a word limit, it is honest. Readers who only read the summary deserve that.
Does this work for a post-mortem or incident report?
Yes, with the decision being 'what we change'. Timelines belong in an appendix. The findings-first structure applies, and the no-passive-blame rule matters even more: name actions and systems, not people, and say who decides what changes.