Help me answer this question or complete this task: [QUESTION OR TASK]. The decision or use case is [CONTEXT AND DECISION]. My audience is [AUDIENCE], and the answer must fit these constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Use these materials if relevant: [AVAILABLE SOURCES OR DATA]. Start by restating the task in one sentence and listing the key assumptions you must make. If a required fact, definition, location, date range, or success criterion is missing, ask up to 3 clarifying questions before proceeding. Otherwise, give a direct answer rather than a generic overview. Use this output structure: 1. Bottom line: 2 to 4 sentences that answer the task directly. 2. Reasoning: the important facts, tradeoffs, and causal links, ordered by importance. 3. Recommendation or next action: specific steps, owner, and timing where applicable. 4. Risks, exceptions, and unknowns: separate confirmed facts from reasonable inferences. 5. Source notes: cite supplied sources precisely; if browsing is available and current information matters, use credible primary sources and give direct links. Match the depth and terminology to the audience. Quantify claims only when the underlying data supports them. For comparisons, use consistent criteria and state them before choosing. For legal, medical, tax, safety, financial, or other high-stakes topics, provide general information and questions to take to a qualified professional, not individualized professional advice. Do not invent facts, citations, data, quotes, personal experience, or certainty. Say “I don’t know” when evidence is insufficient and state what would resolve it. Before answering, check that the conclusion follows from the evidence and that every important claim is either sourced, labeled as an assumption, or labeled as an inference.
Fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| [QUESTION OR TASK] | State the exact question you need answered or the work you need completed. | Compare whether we should renew our project management software or switch to a lower-cost alternative |
| [CONTEXT AND DECISION] | Explain why you need the answer and what decision or action it will inform. | A 14-person product team must decide before our annual renewal on November 1 |
| [AUDIENCE] | Name who will read or use the answer and their level of knowledge. | The COO and engineering manager, who want a concise decision memo |
| [CONSTRAINTS] | State limits such as budget, timeline, format, geography, or policy requirements. | Budget under $9,000 per year; must support SSO, Jira integration, and data export; maximum two weeks for migration |
| [AVAILABLE SOURCES OR DATA] | Paste relevant notes, links, data, documents, or say that none are available. | Current tool costs $11,400 annually; 11 active users; team survey says reporting is weak; candidate tools are Linear and ClickUp |
How to use
- Write the real decision and constraints before asking the question; a useful answer needs a boundary.
- Paste source material or data directly and state whether the model may use current web sources.
- Check the assumptions and source notes before acting on the recommendation.
- Follow up with: “Challenge your recommendation: give the strongest case for the alternative and identify what new evidence would change your answer.”
Variations
Research brief
Use this when you need a sourced explanation of a current topic.
Research [TOPIC] for [AUDIENCE] and answer [SPECIFIC QUESTION]. Cover [SCOPE, LOCATION, AND DATE RANGE]. Use current primary sources where possible and cite each material factual claim with a direct link. Deliver a 150-word summary, five evidence-backed findings, disagreements or uncertainties, and implications for [DECISION]. Do not use invented citations or treat commentary as proof. Before answering, separate confirmed facts from interpretation and flag weak evidence.
Decision memo
Use this when choosing among a few concrete options.
Write a decision memo choosing among [OPTIONS] for [DECISION]. Evaluate them using [CRITERIA], weighted as follows: [WEIGHTS]. Use this evidence: [DATA OR NOTES]. Return a recommendation, a comparison table, key tradeoffs, implementation steps, and a reversal condition that would change the recommendation. Do not assume missing costs, capabilities, or risks; label them as unknown. Check that the selected option scores best under the stated criteria, not just on one attractive feature.
Answer critique
Use this when an existing AI answer seems vague or unreliable.
Critique this answer to [ORIGINAL QUESTION]: [DRAFT ANSWER]. Compare it against these requirements: [REQUIREMENTS]. Identify unsupported claims, missing assumptions, vague language, logical jumps, and source problems. Then write an improved answer of [LENGTH OR FORMAT] using only [ALLOWED SOURCES]. Mark any point that still needs verification. Do not silently add facts or citations. Check that the revised conclusion is no stronger than the evidence allows.
Tips
- Define the decision that follows from the answer; asking “which option should we choose before renewal?” produces better analysis than asking “tell me about these tools.”
- Tell the model which facts are current and which are estimates, because false precision often begins with mixed-quality inputs.
- For comparisons, set the criteria and their importance before reading the recommendation so the model cannot choose the criteria after favoring an option.
- Ask for a reversal condition: the specific new fact that would make the recommendation change. It exposes fragile reasoning.
FAQ
Why does AI sometimes give confident but wrong answers?
Language models can generate plausible patterns without verifying facts. Requiring sources, assumptions, and unknowns makes gaps visible but does not replace checking important claims.
Should I ask AI to browse the web?
Ask for current, credible primary sources when the topic changes over time. Still open the cited source and confirm that it supports the exact claim.
How many clarifying questions should I allow?
Limit them to the missing inputs that materially affect the answer. Three is usually enough to resolve scope without turning the exchange into an interview.