Prompts that turn research into a call - a decision framework, a steelman debate, a 30-day plan or a roadmap - for founders and teams who have to act on what the sources say.
Build a competitor research brief from these sources.
For each competitor named in the notebook, capture:
- Positioning statement, in their own words where possible.
- Target customer (be specific: role, company size, use case).
- Pricing model and any published prices.
- The 3 features they emphasize most in their messaging.
- Their stated weaknesses, admitted gaps, or roadmap items.
- Recurring customer complaints surfaced in the sources.
End with a one-page "where we can differentiate" summary listing the 3–5 most defensible wedges.
Stage a steelman debate between the opposing viewpoints in this notebook.
Step 1 — Identify the 2–3 main viewpoints the sources represent. Name each one.
Step 2 — For each viewpoint, write its steelman:
- Strongest core argument in 2–3 sentences.
- The 3 best pieces of evidence from the notebook supporting it.
- The most charitable interpretation of its weakest point.
Step 3 — Cross-examination. For each pair of viewpoints, list the 2 sharpest questions one side would ask the other, and the strongest reply available in the sources.
Step 4 — Verdict. Which view holds up best given only the notebook evidence? Explain in 3–5 sentences what would have to change for a different view to win.
No straw men. If a viewpoint's evidence is thin, say so explicitly — don't fabricate support.
Build a structured decision framework using the sources in this notebook.
Assume I have to choose between [INSERT OPTIONS HERE — e.g., "Option A vs Option B vs Option C"].
Produce:
1. The 5–7 criteria that actually matter for this decision, drawn from the sources. For each, explain why it matters and which source(s) elevate it.
2. A weight (1–5) for each criterion, with a one-sentence justification grounded in the notebook.
3. A scoring table: rows are options, columns are criteria, cells are 1–5 scores with a one-line citation from the sources for each score.
4. The dominant option after weighted scoring, and the one criterion that — if reweighted — would flip the result.
5. The two questions I still need answers to before committing, and which kind of source would most likely contain them.
If the notebook doesn't support a confident score, write "Insufficient evidence" rather than guessing.
Write a strategic memo for a small leadership team using only this notebook.
Use this exact structure:
1. Situation — 3–5 sentences on what's actually going on, drawn from the strongest signals in the sources.
2. Why now — the 2–3 forces in the notebook making this urgent rather than something to revisit next quarter.
3. Options — 3 distinct paths forward. For each: a one-line description, the strongest source supporting it, the trade-off it accepts, and the type of team best suited to it.
4. Recommendation — pick one. Defend it in 4–6 sentences using specific sources.
5. What would change my mind — 3 concrete future signals that would invalidate the recommendation.
6. Open questions for the team — 3 questions worth debating before locking in.
Write it terse and confident. No throat-clearing. No "this memo covers." If a section can't be supported by the notebook, write "Not supported by current sources" rather than fabricating.
Turns a notebook into a week-by-week plan with concrete milestones instead of a list of takeaways. For operators and founders moving from research to execution.
Convert this notebook into a 30-day action plan for someone applying what they just learned.
Structure exactly as:
Goal — In one sentence, the single most important outcome the sources suggest aiming for over the next 30 days.
Week 1 — Foundation.
3 actions. For each: what to do (one verb-led line), why (cite the source that supports it), and the smallest credible "done" condition.
Week 2 — Build.
3 actions, same format. These should compound on Week 1.
Week 3 — Pressure-test.
3 actions, same format. These should expose whether the plan is working.
Week 4 — Decide.
2 actions, same format, plus one explicit decision point: "If X by end of week 4, do Y; otherwise Z." Both branches must be grounded in the notebook.
Constraints:
- No action longer than one sentence.
- Every action must cite a source.
- If two actions overlap, merge them. Twelve actions max across the whole plan.
- If the notebook can't support a week, write "Not enough evidence for Week N — here's what to research first" instead of fabricating tasks.
Use only the evidence in this notebook to project three future scenarios over the next 24 months.
For each of Optimistic, Base Case, and Pessimistic, produce:
1. Headline outcome in one sentence.
2. The 3 key drivers (each with the source that supports it) that would push the world toward this scenario.
3. The strongest piece of counter-evidence in the notebook that argues against this scenario.
4. Three leading indicators — concrete, observable signals over the next 6 months that would tell you this scenario is unfolding.
5. The first decision someone reading this should make differently if they believed this scenario.
End with:
- A probability you'd assign each scenario, summing to 100%, with a one-sentence justification grounded in the sources.
- The single signal that, if observed, would most strongly shift weight between scenarios.
Do not invent drivers or indicators the notebook can't support. Speculation is fine; fabrication is not.
Convert this notebook into an implementation roadmap for a small team that has to actually ship the thing the sources describe.
Produce:
1. End-state in one sentence — what "done" looks like, grounded in the sources.
2. Milestones — 4–6 named milestones in execution order. For each: the outcome, the sources that justify it, and the single thing that proves the milestone is real.
3. Dependencies — for each milestone, list what must be true before it can start. Highlight the critical path explicitly.
4. Workstreams and owner archetypes — 3–5 parallel workstreams with the kind of person who should run each (e.g. "infra-leaning engineer", "design-partner manager"). Don't invent names.
5. Risks and kill criteria — the 3 risks most likely to derail the roadmap, and the observable signal that should trigger a stop or pivot for each.
6. The smallest possible week-1 commit — one concrete action that could begin tomorrow and would still produce useful information even if the whole roadmap is later scrapped.