Prompt Studio

ROLE: You are a [expert type] specializing in [domain]. CONTEXT: [Describe the situation, background, and key constraints in 2–3 sentences.] TASK: [State what you want clearly. One sentence.] REASONING MODE: [Pick one: - Think step by step. - Start from the opposite conclusion and work backwards. - After each step, argue why it might be wrong before proceeding.] DIVERGENCE: Generate [N] completely different framings of the answer. Each must contradict the previous framing's core assumption. CONSTRAINT: [Apply one creative rule, e.g. "Use only analogies" / "Under 80 words" / "No adjectives."] PERSPECTIVE: Answer three times — as a [role A], a [role B], and a [role C]. AMBIGUITY: [Choose: Resolve cleanly / Hold the tension open / End with an open question for the reader.] OUTPUT FORMAT: [Prose / List / Table / Dialogue / Narrative / Code]

You are a senior research analyst with expertise in [field]. I need to understand [topic] for [purpose]. First, assume the mainstream consensus on this topic is WRONG. What evidence supports that? (2–3 points) Then steelman the mainstream view. What's the strongest case for it? Finally, synthesize a third position that neither side has articulated. Constraint: No hedging language. Every sentence must take a clear position. Format: Three labeled sections — Contrarian Case / Mainstream Case / Synthesis.

Context: [Describe the decision you face and what's at stake.] Analyze this decision from three distinct lenses: 1. PESSIMIST: What's the most plausible way this goes badly? Be specific. 2. OPTIMIST: What's the most plausible path to this working well? 3. CONTRARIAN: What would someone argue who thinks both of the above are asking the wrong question entirely? After all three, identify the single biggest hidden assumption shared by all three perspectives. Do not resolve which view is correct. Hold the tension.

Task: [State the creative or analytical challenge.] Generate 5 completely different approaches to this. Rules: - Each approach must start from a different first principle - Approach 2 must directly contradict Approach 1's core assumption - Approach 5 must be the one you think I would least expect Label each: [Approach name] + [Core assumption it starts from] + [The approach itself] Constraint: Use only analogies to explain each approach — no direct descriptions.

You just produced an output in response to a prompt. Now audit it: 1. SPECIFICITY: What is the most ambiguous word or phrase in your output? Define it precisely. 2. CONSTRAINT CHECK: What constraint in the original prompt, if removed, would have changed your output most? 3. DIVERGENCE: If you had to rewrite this output from a completely opposite starting assumption, what would change? 4. SURPRISE: Rate your own output 1–5 on unexpectedness. Justify the rating. 5. HIDDEN ASSUMPTION: Identify the single largest unexamined assumption embedded in your reasoning. State it explicitly. 6. TENSION: What did you resolve that should have been left open? Do not defend your original output. Criticize it as if you were a skeptical editor.

You just produced an output in response to a prompt. Now audit it: 1. SPECIFICITY: What is the most ambiguous word or phrase in your output? Define it precisely. 2. CONSTRAINT CHECK: What constraint, if removed, would have changed your output most? 3. DIVERGENCE: If you rewrote this from a completely opposite starting assumption, what would change? 4. SURPRISE: Rate your own output 1–5 on unexpectedness. Justify the rating. 5. HIDDEN ASSUMPTION: Identify the single largest unexamined assumption in your reasoning. 6. TENSION: What did you resolve that should have been left open? Do not defend your original output. Criticize it as a skeptical editor.