40+ ChatGPT & AI prompts for Business Plans & Strategy

ROLE: You are a business-intelligence and operations consultant who designs KPI systems that drive behavior, not vanity dashboards.

CONTEXT: The team/business is [NAME, FUNCTION]. The overarching goal we're trying to move is [NORTH-STAR / PRIMARY OUTCOME]. The data we can realistically capture: [AVAILABLE METRICS / SYSTEMS]. The audience for the dashboard: [WHO USES IT AND HOW OFTEN].

TASK:
1. Define one north-star metric that best represents value created, and explain why it's the right top-line.
2. Build a metric tree: decompose the north-star into 3-5 lagging outcome metrics, then into the leading/input metrics that teams can actually influence weekly.
3. For each KPI, specify: definition (no ambiguity), formula, target/benchmark, owner, and review cadence.
4. Distinguish leading from lagging indicators and explain how the leading ones predict the lagging ones.
5. Identify the 'guardrail' metrics that must not degrade while we chase the goal (e.g., quality, cost, burnout).
6. Recommend the minimal dashboard layout: what's on the executive view vs. the operational view.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- North-star metric + rationale
- Metric tree (visualized as nested bullets)
- KPI definition table (KPI | Formula | Target | Owner | Cadence | Leading/Lagging)
- Guardrail metrics
- Dashboard layout recommendation

CONSTRAINTS: Fewer metrics, better — resist a wall of numbers. Every KPI must be actionable by someone; cut metrics nobody owns. Define formulas precisely so two people compute them identically. Flag any metric that is easily gamed and how to counter it. Note where the needed data isn't yet captured.

ROLE: You are a pricing strategy consultant who blends value-based pricing with operational and competitive reality.

CONTEXT: The offering is [PRODUCT/SERVICE]. Current or proposed price/model: [PRICE & STRUCTURE]. Our unit economics: [COSTS, MARGINS]. Target customers and their willingness-to-pay signals: [SEGMENTS, WHAT THEY VALUE]. Competitor pricing where known: [COMPETITORS]. Business goal: [GROW VOLUME / MAX MARGIN / LAND-AND-EXPAND].

TASK:
1. Assess which pricing approach fits: cost-plus, competitor-indexed, value-based, or a hybrid — and why, given our goal.
2. Estimate the value delivered to the customer in their terms (money saved/earned, time, risk reduced) to anchor a value-based ceiling.
3. Check the floor: confirm the price covers fully-loaded cost and target margin.
4. Evaluate the structure itself: one-time vs. subscription, tiers, usage-based, packaging, and where to place the 'good/better/best' anchors.
5. Identify pricing risks: discounting pressure, churn at price points, segment mismatch, and competitor response.
6. Recommend a price/structure with a clear rationale and a test to validate it before full rollout.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Recommended approach + reasoning
- Value ceiling & cost floor (with assumptions)
- Structure recommendation (tiers/packaging)
- Risks & competitor-response scenarios
- Validation test plan

CONSTRAINTS: Don't anchor on cost-plus by default — lead with customer value. State every assumption behind a number. Avoid race-to-the-bottom pricing unless strategy demands it, and flag the margin consequence. Recommend testing before committing.

ROLE: You are an operations strategist who coaches teams to write OKRs that are ambitious, measurable, and not vanity metrics.

CONTEXT: My team is [TEAM/FUNCTION]. The strategic priority for this quarter is [PRIORITY]. Context on our current baseline metrics: [CURRENT NUMBERS]. Constraints: [HEADCOUNT, BUDGET, DEPENDENCIES].

TASK:
1. Draft 2-3 Objectives that are qualitative, inspirational, and clearly tied to the priority.
2. For each Objective, write 3-4 Key Results that are quantitative, outcome-based (not task lists), and have a baseline and a target.
3. Stress-test each Key Result against four tests: Is it measurable? Is it an outcome not an output? Is it ambitious yet achievable? Could we game it? Flag and fix any that fail.
4. Identify the leading indicators we should track weekly to know if we're on pace.
5. List the top 3 dependencies or risks that could derail these OKRs.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Objective blocks, each with its Key Results (KR | Baseline | Target | Owner)
- Stress-test notes per KR
- Weekly leading indicators
- Dependencies & risks

CONSTRAINTS: No KR may be a to-do item ('launch X') unless it has a measurable success threshold. Avoid more than 3 objectives — focus over coverage. Every target must reference the baseline I gave you or explicitly note the assumed baseline. Push back if a proposed objective is actually just business-as-usual.

ROLE: You are a growth strategist who installs a single North Star metric and a driver tree that aligns an entire startup.

CONTEXT: Business model: [MODEL]. Core value customers get: [VALUE_MOMENT]. Current metrics we track: [CURRENT_METRICS]. Stage and current priority: [STAGE_AND_FOCUS].

TASK:
1. Recommend a North Star metric that captures delivered customer value (not just revenue or vanity reach). Justify why it's the right one for our stage and explain the trap of choosing revenue or signups instead.
2. Decompose the North Star into a driver tree: the 3-4 input metrics that mathematically drive it, then the sub-levers under each (acquisition, activation, retention, monetization, referral as relevant).
3. For each input metric, name one team/owner and one experiment that could move it this quarter.
4. Define a small set of 'guardrail' metrics that must not degrade while we chase the North Star.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) North Star recommendation + rationale; (2) Driver tree (North Star -> inputs -> sub-levers) as an indented hierarchy; (3) Owner + experiment per input; (4) Guardrail metrics.

CONSTRAINTS: The North Star must reflect value the customer receives, so that moving it grows a healthy business. Avoid metrics that can be gamed without helping customers. Keep the tree shallow enough that a small team can actually act on it - no 40-metric dashboards.

ROLE: You are a business-model strategist who designs monetization that aligns with how customers actually get value.

CONTEXT: Product: [PRODUCT]. Who pays: [PAYER]. Who uses: [USER]. Value the customer gets: [VALUE_DELIVERED]. Current/planned pricing: [PRICING_IF_ANY]. Cost to serve one customer: [COGS].

TASK:
1. Map the business model: value proposition, customer segments, revenue streams, key costs, and the core unit being monetized. Identify whether usage, seats, outcomes, or transactions best align price to value.
2. Propose a pricing structure: model (subscription/usage/tiered/freemium/transaction), the value metric, and 3 tiers with what each unlocks and a suggested price logic.
3. Pressure-test: does the price capture a fair share of value delivered? Compute a rough value-to-price ratio and flag if we're underpricing.
4. Recommend the single pricing experiment to run first to find willingness to pay.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Business-model map; (2) Pricing structure with 3 tiers and price logic; (3) Value-to-price sanity check; (4) First pricing experiment to run.

CONSTRAINTS: Anchor price to value delivered, not cost-plus. Avoid freemium unless we can show why free users convert or create network value. If the value metric and the billing metric are misaligned (a classic SaaS trap), call it out and fix it.

ROLE: You are a go-to-market strategist specializing in finding the narrow wedge that lets a startup win before competitors notice.

CONTEXT: Product: [PRODUCT]. Broad market: [BROAD_MARKET]. Candidate customer segments: [LIST_2_TO_4_SEGMENTS]. Current unfair advantage: [DISTRIBUTION_OR_PRODUCT_EDGE]. Budget/runway for GTM: [RESOURCES].

TASK:
1. Score each candidate segment on: urgency of pain, willingness to pay, ease of reaching them, low competition, and reference-ability to the next segment (1-5 each). Pick the beachhead.
2. Define the wedge: the single smallest valuable thing we do better than anyone for this segment.
3. Design the initial GTM motion (founder-led sales / PLG / community / partnerships) and explain why it fits this segment, with the first 10 customers' acquisition path.
4. Lay out the expansion sequence: which adjacent segment we earn the right to attack next and why.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Segment scoring matrix; (2) Wedge statement (one sentence); (3) GTM motion plan with first-10-customers tactics; (4) Expansion ladder (3 rungs).

CONSTRAINTS: Reject the temptation to 'go after everyone'. The wedge must be defensible against a larger incumbent for at least 12 months. If no segment scores well, say the product may need repositioning rather than forcing a plan.

Apply Blue Ocean Strategy to [market/product]. (1) Map the current competitive factors in the industry (8-10 factors). (2) Plot where incumbents compete (the red ocean). (3) Apply ERRC grid: Eliminate (which factors to remove), Reduce (below industry standard), Raise (above industry standard), Create (new factors never offered). (4) Describe the resulting value innovation. (5) Target non-customers (3 tiers). (6) Title the new blue ocean. (7) Key execution risks and how to pilot-test.

Design a comprehensive pricing strategy for [product/service]. Current price: [X]. Competitors: [list with prices]. Target customer: [profile]. Analyze: (1) Value-based pricing ceiling (what customers will pay). (2) Cost-plus floor. (3) Competitive positioning. (4) Psychological pricing tactics (anchoring, decoy effect, charm pricing). (5) Tiering strategy with 3 plans. (6) Recommended price with rationale. (7) A/B test design to validate.

Conduct a SWOT analysis for [company/product/initiative], then convert it into a TOWS strategy matrix. SWOT: list 4 items per quadrant. TOWS: SO strategies (use strengths to exploit opportunities), ST strategies (use strengths to neutralize threats), WO strategies (overcome weaknesses via opportunities), WT strategies (minimize weaknesses and avoid threats). Prioritize by impact × feasibility. Output: top 3 strategic recommendations.

Develop a market entry strategy for [company] entering [market/country/segment]. Cover: (1) Market sizing and segmentation. (2) Competitive landscape analysis (Porter's 5 Forces). (3) Entry mode options (organic/JV/acquisition/licensing) with pros/cons. (4) Recommended entry sequence (which customer segment first, why). (5) Partnership ecosystem. (6) 90-day tactical plan. (7) Key risks and mitigation. (8) Success metrics for year 1.

Create a quarterly OKR framework for [team/company] based on the strategic priority: [priority]. Generate 3 Objectives, each with 3-4 Key Results. Each KR must be: specific, measurable with a baseline and target, ambitious but achievable, and owned by a role. Include: leading indicators vs. lagging indicators distinction, how each KR ladders to company strategy, and a weekly check-in cadence template.

You are a competitive intelligence analyst. The user names a competitor. Analyze their website, pricing, marketing, and weaknesses using 2026 web tools. Deliver a SWOT table and 5 counter-strategies.

{
  "role": "Startup Founder",
  "context": "Developing a business plan for a startup focused on innovative solutions in the tumor medical industry.",
  "task": "Create a detailed business plan aimed at addressing key challenges and opportunities within the tumor medical sector.",
  "sections": {
    "Executive Summary": "Provide a concise overview of the business, its mission, and its objectives.",
    "Market Analysis": "Analyze the current tumor medical industry landscape, including market size, growth potential, and key competitors.",
    "Business Model": "Outline the business model, including revenue streams, customer segments, and value propositions.",
    "Solution Description": "Detail the innovative solutions offered, including technologies and services that address tumor-related challenges.",
    "Marketing Strategy": "Develop strategies for reaching target customers and establishing a brand presence in the market.",
    "Financial Plan": "Create financial projections, including startup costs, revenue forecasts, and funding requirements.",
    "Team and Management": "Introduce the team members and their expertise relevant to executing the business plan.",
    "Risk Analysis": "Identify potential risks and outline mitigation strategies."
  },
  "constraints": [
    "Ensure compliance with medical regulations and standards.",
    "Focus on patient-centric solutions and ethical considerations."
  ],
  "output_format": "A structured JSON object representing each section of the business plan."
}

Act as a Monetization Strategy Analyst for a mobile game. You are an expert in game monetization, especially in merging games with blockchain integrations. Your task is to analyze the current monetization models of popular merging games in Turkey and globally, focusing on blockchain-based rewards. 

You will:
- Review existing monetization strategies in similar games
- Analyze the impact of blockchain elements on game revenue
- Provide recommendations for innovative monetization models
- Suggest strategies for player retention and engagement

Rules:
- Focus on merging games with blockchain rewards
- Consider cultural preferences in Turkey and global trends
- Use data-driven insights to justify recommendations

Variables:
- Game Name: ${gameName:Merging Game}
- BlockChain Platform: ${blockchainPlatform:Sui}
- Target Market: ${targetMarket:Turkey}
- Globa Trends: ${globalTrends:Global}

give the best prompt to identify the complete company profile of euler, like core aspeccts to focus on, fundraising, growth strategy, series funding, execution plan, vc involvement, etc. Basically complete data about Euler motors

ROLE: You are a negotiation strategist who preps executives for high-stakes commercial negotiations.

CONTEXT: I am negotiating [DEAL — e.g., a contract renewal, vendor agreement, partnership, salary, settlement] with [COUNTERPARTY]. My goals: [WHAT I WANT — ranked]. What I know about their position and pressures: [THEIR LIKELY INTERESTS, CONSTRAINTS, DEADLINES]. The relationship matters because: [ONGOING / ONE-OFF].

TASK:
1. Separate positions from interests for both sides — what each party is really trying to achieve underneath the stated asks.
2. Define my BATNA (best alternative if no deal) and assess how strong it is; estimate their BATNA too.
3. Establish the ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) and my target, opening, and walk-away points, with reasoning.
4. Design a concession ladder: what I can trade, in what order, and what I'll ask for in return for each give (never give free concessions).
5. Anticipate their likely tactics (anchoring, deadline pressure, good-cop/bad-cop, take-it-or-leave-it) and script my response to each.
6. Identify value-creating moves that could expand the pie before we divide it.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Interests vs. positions (both sides)
- BATNA analysis (mine & theirs) + ZOPA
- Target / opening / walk-away with rationale
- Concession ladder (Give | Ask-in-return | Order)
- Tactic-and-response table
- Value-creation opportunities

CONSTRAINTS: Protect the long-term relationship where it's ongoing — no scorched-earth tactics. Never reveal my walk-away. Keep recommendations ethical and honest. Where I lack intel on their side, mark it as an inference and suggest how to probe for it early.

ROLE: You are a growth lead who finds the one or two channels that actually scale for a startup, using disciplined cheap tests.

CONTEXT: Product: [PRODUCT]. Customer: [CUSTOMER] and where they spend time: [WHERE]. Price point: [PRICE] (affects which channels are viable). Stage and budget for tests: [BUDGET]. Channels tried so far: [TRIED_AND_RESULTS].

TASK:
1. From the full channel set (content/SEO, paid search, paid social, outbound sales, partnerships, community, marketplaces, virality/referral, events, PR), shortlist the 3-4 most plausible for MY customer and price point. Eliminate the obviously wrong ones and say why.
2. For each shortlisted channel, estimate fit, expected CAC range, time-to-signal, and the minimum viable test (budget, duration, success metric).
3. Sequence the tests: which to run first to learn fastest and cheapest, and the kill criteria for each.
4. Define what a 'winning channel' looks like (CAC payback and scalability thresholds) so I know when to double down.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Channel shortlist with eliminations explained; (2) Per-channel test card (fit, CAC range, signal time, MVP test); (3) Test sequence with kill criteria; (4) Winning-channel thresholds.

CONSTRAINTS: Match channels to price point - low ACV can't support outbound sales, high ACV rarely works on cheap paid social. Run one channel test at a time with a clear success metric; reject the 'spray across all channels' impulse. Insist on kill criteria so I stop pouring money into a dead channel.

ROLE: You are a change-management consultant specializing in stakeholder alignment for large initiatives.

CONTEXT: I am driving this initiative: [INITIATIVE]. The stakeholders involved are: [LIST NAMES/ROLES AND WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT EACH — their function, what they care about, prior signals of support or resistance]. My objective is [DESIRED OUTCOME] by [DEADLINE].

TASK:
1. For each stakeholder, infer their likely position (champion, supporter, neutral, skeptic, blocker) and the underlying interest or fear driving it.
2. Plot them on a power-vs-interest grid (High/Low for each) and state the grid quadrant.
3. For each stakeholder, define the specific 'what's in it for them' message and the 'what they're afraid of' to neutralize.
4. Recommend an engagement cadence and channel per stakeholder (1:1, group, written, sponsor-led).
5. Identify coalition opportunities: who can influence whom, and the order to win people over.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Stakeholder table (Name/Role | Stance | Driving interest | Power | Interest | Quadrant)
- Power/interest grid described in text
- Tailored messaging per stakeholder
- Engagement plan (Stakeholder | Cadence | Channel | Owner)
- Sequencing/coalition strategy

CONSTRAINTS: Be politically realistic, not naive. Do not assume goodwill where signals suggest resistance. Flag where you are inferring versus where I gave you facts. Keep messaging honest — no manipulation, only legitimate alignment of interests.

**Role:** Strategy advisor who has facilitated 30+ pre-mortems for startup teams. You know how to make people honest about risks they're emotionally invested in.

**Context:** Decision / project: [what we're planning]. Timeline: [when we'll know if it worked]. Stakes: [what's at risk — team time, runway, brand]. Team's emotional investment in this working: [high/med/low].

**Task:** Run the pre-mortem.

1. Frame: "It's [end date]. The project failed. What happened?"
2. Imagined failure scenarios: list 5-7 specific ways this could fail. Be uncomfortable. Include scenarios the team would push back on.
3. For each scenario: rank by likelihood (low/med/high) and severity (low/med/high). Compute risk score.
4. Top 3 risks: for each, name the EARLY indicator that the scenario is starting to play out. The signal we'd see in 30 days, not at the end.
5. Mitigation: for each top-3 risk, the specific action we'd take to prevent OR detect-and-pivot.
6. Kill criterion: name the ONE thing that, if it happens, means we should stop and re-plan.

**Constraints:**
- Failure scenarios must be specific (not "execution issues" but "two key engineers quit by month 3")
- The team's preferred narrative is the wrong starting point — push past it
- Every mitigation has an owner and a check-in date
- The kill criterion is non-negotiable — must be specific enough to be observable

**Output format:** 5 sections · risk matrix · top-3 deep dive · kill criterion callout.

ROLE: You are a supply-chain resilience consultant who hardens operations against disruption.

CONTEXT: Our supply chain for [PRODUCT/SERVICE]: key suppliers and what they provide [LIST]; critical components/materials [LIST]; lead times [TIMES]; current inventory/buffer policy [POLICY]; geographic concentration [REGIONS]. Recent disruptions or worries: [EXAMPLES].

TASK:
1. Map the critical path: which suppliers, components, and routes are essential to delivering, and where the dependencies concentrate.
2. Identify single points of failure: sole-source suppliers, geographic clustering, long lead times, and key-component fragility.
3. Run a stress test across realistic disruption scenarios (supplier failure, port/logistics shock, demand spike, quality recall) and assess the impact and recovery time of each.
4. Recommend resilience levers per vulnerability: dual-sourcing, nearshoring, safety stock, supplier qualification, and contractual protections — with the cost/benefit trade-off (resilience isn't free).
5. Define early-warning indicators and a contingency playbook with pre-decided triggers.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Critical-path map
- Single-point-of-failure list (Vulnerability | Why critical | Exposure)
- Stress-test table (Scenario | Impact | Recovery time | Likelihood)
- Resilience recommendations (Lever | Vulnerability addressed | Cost vs. benefit)
- Early-warning indicators + contingency triggers

CONSTRAINTS: Balance resilience against cost and working capital — don't recommend gold-plating everything; prioritize by criticality x exposure. Be specific about which supplier/component, not generic. State assumptions for lead times and recovery estimates. Flag where you need more data on a supplier's own resilience.

ROLE: You are a strategic-finance and operations consultant who builds annual operating plans that connect strategy to budget to execution.

CONTEXT: The business/unit is [NAME], [SIZE/STAGE]. The strategic goals for the year: [GOALS]. Last year's performance and learnings: [WHAT HAPPENED]. Known constraints: [BUDGET CEILING, HEADCOUNT, MARKET CONDITIONS]. Major bets or initiatives under consideration: [INITIATIVES].

TASK:
1. Translate the strategic goals into 4-6 operating priorities for the year, each with a clear owner and the outcome it must produce.
2. Allocate resources (budget and headcount) across priorities, making the trade-offs explicit — what gets funded, what gets cut, and why.
3. Build a milestone roadmap across the four quarters, sequencing initiatives by dependency and capacity.
4. Write the budget narrative: justify the major line items in terms of the priorities they fund, and call out the assumptions the plan depends on.
5. Define the success metrics and the quarterly review checkpoints to course-correct.
6. Identify the top risks to the plan and the contingency if revenue or funding comes in below plan.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Operating priorities (Priority | Outcome | Owner)
- Resource allocation table (Priority | Budget | Headcount | Trade-off note)
- Quarterly roadmap with milestones
- Budget narrative & key assumptions
- Success metrics & review cadence
- Risks & downside contingency

CONSTRAINTS: Force real trade-offs — a plan that funds everything funds nothing. Tie every dollar to a priority. Make assumptions explicit so the plan can be re-cut if reality shifts. Be honest about what we'll stop doing to make room for new bets. Keep it executable, not aspirational.

ROLE: You are a growth-strategy consultant who writes go/no-go market-entry memos for executive decision-makers.

CONTEXT: We are considering entering [NEW MARKET / SEGMENT / GEOGRAPHY] with [PRODUCT/SERVICE]. Our current business: [WHO WE ARE, CURRENT MARKETS]. What we know about the target: [DEMAND SIGNALS, COMPETITORS, CUSTOMER NEEDS, REGULATORY NOTES]. Our resources and constraints: [BUDGET, CAPABILITIES, TIMELINE].

TASK:
1. Define the target market precisely and estimate its size and growth (TAM/SAM/SOM logic), stating assumptions clearly where data is thin.
2. Assess attractiveness: customer need intensity, competitive density, our right-to-win, and barriers to entry.
3. Evaluate operational readiness: what we'd need to build/hire/partner to actually serve this market, and the gaps.
4. Sketch the unit economics of entry: customer acquisition cost, expected margin, and rough breakeven timeline.
5. Compare 2-3 entry modes (organic build, partnership, acquisition, pilot) and recommend one.
6. Deliver a clear go / no-go / conditional-go recommendation with the decisive factors.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Market definition & sizing (with assumptions)
- Attractiveness assessment
- Right-to-win & readiness gaps
- Entry economics (CAC, margin, breakeven)
- Entry-mode comparison + recommendation
- Go/No-Go verdict with conditions and top risks

CONSTRAINTS: Be intellectually honest — if the case is weak, recommend no-go or a cheap pilot rather than forcing optimism. Separate facts from assumptions and flag the riskiest assumptions. Don't ignore operational reality in favor of a pretty market size. Name the data that would most change the verdict.

ROLE: You are a customer-experience operations consultant who maps journeys and removes friction that costs conversions and loyalty.

CONTEXT: The journey to audit is for [CUSTOMER TYPE] buying/using [PRODUCT/SERVICE]. The stages, as I understand them: [LIST STAGES — e.g., awareness, evaluation, purchase, onboarding, use, support, renewal]. Known pain points or drop-offs: [WHAT WE SEE IN DATA OR FEEDBACK]. Our goal: [INCREASE CONVERSION / REDUCE SUPPORT LOAD / IMPROVE RETENTION].

TASK:
1. Lay out the journey stage by stage. For each stage, describe the customer's goal, the actions they take, their likely emotional state, and the channels/touchpoints involved.
2. Identify friction at each stage: effort, confusion, waiting, broken handoffs, and 'moments of truth' where trust is won or lost.
3. Map where customers drop off or escalate, and hypothesize why.
4. Prioritize fixes by impact on the goal vs. effort to implement.
5. Recommend the top 3 'quick win' fixes and the 1-2 deeper structural fixes, each with the metric that should move.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Journey table (Stage | Customer goal | Actions | Emotion | Touchpoints | Friction)
- Drop-off/escalation hotspots with hypotheses
- Prioritization matrix (Fix | Impact | Effort)
- Recommended quick wins + structural fixes (with target metric)

CONSTRAINTS: Take the customer's point of view, not the org chart's. Don't optimize an internal metric at the customer's expense. Separate observed facts from hypotheses, and name the data needed to confirm. Quick wins must be genuinely shippable in weeks, not quarters.

ROLE: You are a strategy and operations consultant who advises on make-vs-buy-vs-partner decisions.

CONTEXT: We need [CAPABILITY/PRODUCT/FUNCTION]. The options are: build it in-house, buy/license a solution, or partner/outsource. Relevant facts: our internal capability is [CURRENT SKILLS/CAPACITY]; this capability is [CORE / NON-CORE] to our strategy; budget is [BUDGET]; timeline pressure is [URGENCY]; known external options are [VENDORS/PARTNERS].

TASK:
1. Clarify whether this capability is strategically core (a source of competitive advantage) or a commodity — this should heavily weight the decision.
2. Compare the three paths across: total cost (build vs. buy vs. partner over [HORIZON]), time-to-value, control & IP ownership, scalability, switching cost, and execution risk.
3. Score each path per dimension and explain the trade-offs, not just the totals.
4. Surface the hidden costs people miss for each path (maintenance, integration, lock-in, opportunity cost of internal talent).
5. Recommend a path, and propose a hybrid or staged option if it de-risks the decision.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Strategic core assessment
- Comparison matrix (Dimension | Build | Buy | Partner)
- Hidden-cost callouts per path
- Recommendation with the decisive factors named
- Conditions that would flip the recommendation

CONSTRAINTS: Resist the bias to build (engineers love to build) — justify on strategy and economics. Be explicit about IP and lock-in. State assumptions for any cost or timeline figure. If it's genuinely close, say so and name the tiebreaker.

ROLE: You are an organizational design consultant who optimizes structure for clarity, speed, and accountability.

CONTEXT: The org/unit is [NAME], [HEADCOUNT] people. Current structure: [DESCRIBE LAYERS, MANAGERS, TEAMS, AND ROUGH SPANS]. Symptoms we feel: [SLOW DECISIONS, UNCLEAR OWNERSHIP, TOO MANY LAYERS, MANAGER OVERLOAD, etc.]. Growth/strategy context: [DIRECTION].

TASK:
1. Map the current structure: number of layers from top to front line, and the span of control for each manager.
2. Flag structural problems: layers that add no value, spans that are too narrow (micromanagement/overhead) or too wide (no support), and roles with overlapping or orphaned accountability.
3. Recommend a target structure: ideal layer count, target spans by role type, and which roles to merge, split, or remove.
4. Clarify accountability: for the key functions, name the single owner and eliminate dual-hatting confusion.
5. Sequence the transition to minimize disruption, and flag the people/change risks.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Current-state map (Layers | Manager | Span | Notes)
- Problems identified (Issue | Impact)
- Target-state design (with rationale for spans/layers)
- Accountability clarifications
- Transition sequence + change risks

CONSTRAINTS: Don't cut layers for their own sake — justify each change by decision speed or accountability. Balance against burnout (wide spans without support backfire). Be candid where a layer exists only to give someone a title. Note where role data is missing.

ROLE: You are an operations and S&OP consultant who builds forecasts businesses can plan against.

CONTEXT: I need to forecast demand for [PRODUCT/SERVICE/SKU] over [HORIZON]. Historical data I have: [PAST VOLUMES BY PERIOD]. Known drivers: [SEASONALITY, PROMOTIONS, PIPELINE, MARKET TRENDS, PRICE CHANGES]. Major uncertainties: [UNKNOWNS].

TASK:
1. Choose and justify a forecasting approach appropriate to my data (trend + seasonality, run-rate, driver-based, or a blend) — explain why, and note its limits.
2. Build a base-case forecast period by period, showing the assumptions and the math.
3. Construct upside and downside scenarios by flexing the 2-3 most sensitive assumptions, and state the probability you'd assign to each scenario.
4. Identify the leading signals that would tell us early which scenario we're trending toward.
5. Translate the forecast into a planning recommendation (inventory, staffing, or capacity implication) for each scenario.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Method choice + rationale + limitations
- Base-case forecast table (Period | Forecast | Key assumption)
- Scenario table (Downside | Base | Upside with probabilities)
- Leading signals to monitor
- Planning implications per scenario

CONSTRAINTS: Never present a forecast as certain — always show the scenario range. Make every assumption explicit and changeable. If my history is too short or noisy for a method, say so and recommend the safer approach. Show the math, not just the result.

ROLE: You are a customer-operations consultant focused on retention for [B2B/B2C] [INDUSTRY].

CONTEXT: Our churn situation: [RATE, TREND, DEFINITION OF CHURN]. What we know about who churns and why: [DATA, EXIT REASONS, SEGMENTS]. Our product/service is [DESCRIPTION]. The retention levers available to us: [LEVERS — CS outreach, pricing, onboarding, features].

TASK:
1. Reframe churn precisely: voluntary vs. involuntary, and at what lifecycle stage it concentrates.
2. Hypothesize the top churn drivers, separating what the data supports from what is speculation, and propose the metric that would confirm each.
3. Segment customers by churn risk and value (e.g., high-value/high-risk first) and prioritize accordingly.
4. Design intervention plays per segment: the trigger signal, the action, the owner, and the success metric.
5. Recommend the 3 leading indicators to monitor so churn is caught early, and a target benchmark for each.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Churn definition & breakdown
- Driver hypotheses table (Driver | Supported by | Confirming metric)
- Risk/value segmentation matrix
- Retention playbook (Segment | Trigger | Play | Owner | Success metric)
- Early-warning indicators

CONSTRAINTS: Distinguish correlation from causation explicitly. Don't propose blanket discounts as the first lever — protect margin. Where I lack data, specify the analysis to run. Plays must be operationally concrete, not 'improve customer experience'.

ROLE: You are a lean-startup advisor who helps founders decide pivot-or-persevere with evidence rather than emotion.

CONTEXT: Current product/strategy: [WHAT_WE_DO]. What's not working: [SYMPTOMS]. What IS working, if anything: [BRIGHT_SPOTS]. Months of runway left: [RUNWAY]. Time spent on current path: [TIME]. Strongest piece of customer evidence we have: [KEY_EVIDENCE].

TASK:
1. Diagnose whether the problem is execution, market, product, or positioning - and whether more time on the current path could plausibly fix it.
2. Audit the evidence: separate hard signals (behavior, retention, willingness to pay) from soft signals (opinions, hope). Conclude what the data actually says.
3. If a pivot is warranted, identify which TYPE fits the evidence (zoom-in, zoom-out, customer-segment, platform, business-model, channel) and why - preserving the part that's working.
4. Give a clear recommendation: persevere with these changes, or pivot in this direction - with the runway math on whether we can afford to test it.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Root-cause diagnosis; (2) Evidence audit (hard vs soft, verdict); (3) Pivot-type recommendation if applicable; (4) Final call with runway feasibility.

CONSTRAINTS: Do not pivot away from a working component out of boredom; protect the bright spots. Do not persevere on hope alone if hard signals are flat. Be explicit about whether the runway even allows a real test of the new direction.

ROLE: You are an operations excellence lead who writes SOPs that pass [ISO/SOC2/internal audit] review on the first pass.

CONTEXT: I need a Standard Operating Procedure for this process: [PROCESS NAME]. Here is how it currently works, in my own words: [DESCRIBE STEPS, TOOLS, PEOPLE INVOLVED]. The systems used are [TOOLS/PLATFORMS]. The audience executing it is [ROLE/SENIORITY].

TASK:
1. Clarify the process scope: what triggers it, where it ends, and what is explicitly out of scope.
2. Write the procedure as numbered steps. Each step must name the responsible role, the action verb, the system, and the expected output.
3. Add an exceptions section covering the 3-5 most likely failure points and the escalation path for each.
4. Define the controls: what must be checked or signed off, and by whom.
5. List inputs, outputs, and a glossary of any term a new hire would not know.

OUTPUT FORMAT (use these exact headings):
Purpose | Scope | Roles & Responsibilities | Procedure (numbered) | Exceptions & Escalation | Controls & Sign-offs | Inputs/Outputs | Revision metadata ([VERSION], [OWNER], [REVIEW DATE]).

CONSTRAINTS: Write for someone doing this for the first time. No ambiguous steps ('handle the issue' is banned — say exactly what to do). Keep each step to one action. If a step could be automated, mark it [AUTOMATION CANDIDATE]. The SOP must be unambiguous enough that two people would execute it identically.

ROLE: You are a principal operations consultant who has redesigned operating models for [INDUSTRY] companies at the [REVENUE/HEADCOUNT] scale.

CONTEXT: My organization is [COMPANY/UNIT] with the current structure: [DESCRIBE TEAMS, REPORTING LINES, KEY PROCESSES]. The pain we feel is [SYMPTOMS: slow decisions, duplicated work, handoff failures, etc.]. Our strategic goal over the next [TIME HORIZON] is [GOAL].

TASK — work through this in order:
1. Restate the operating model in five dimensions: structure, decision rights, core processes, performance metrics, and culture/incentives.
2. Diagnose the top 5 sources of friction, each tied to a specific dimension and a concrete observed symptom.
3. Propose a redesigned operating model, showing before/after for each affected dimension.
4. Map decision rights using a RACI for the 6 most contested decisions.
5. Sequence a 90-day transition plan with milestones, owners, and risks.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Executive summary (5 bullets)
- Diagnosis table (Friction | Dimension | Symptom | Root cause)
- Redesign narrative
- RACI table
- 90-day plan table

CONSTRAINTS: Be specific to my context, not generic. Flag any assumption you make. If information is missing to make a recommendation, list the exact question you need answered rather than guessing. Quality bar: a COO should be able to act on this without a follow-up meeting.

ROLE: You are a founder-side advisor who explains venture term sheets in plain English and prioritizes negotiation energy (you are not a lawyer).

CONTEXT: I received a term sheet for a [ROUND] of [AMOUNT] at [PRE/POST] [VALUATION]. Paste the key terms here: [PASTE_TERMS - liquidation preference, participation, option pool, board, pro-rata, anti-dilution, vesting, protective provisions, etc.].

TASK:
1. For each term, write a one-line plain-English translation of what it actually does to me and my future.
2. Score each term: standard/market, slightly aggressive, or red flag - and explain why.
3. Rank the terms by how much they matter to founder outcomes, so I know where to spend negotiating capital (economics vs control vs cleanup).
4. Draft 3 specific, reasonable counter-asks with the rationale I'd give the investor for each.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Term-by-term translation + score table; (2) Negotiation priority ranking with reasoning; (3) Three counter-asks with talking points; (4) A 'walk-away' list of terms that should be deal-breakers.

CONSTRAINTS: State clearly this is not legal advice and a startup lawyer must review the document. Distinguish economic terms from control terms. Don't advise nuking every term - identify the 2-3 that genuinely matter and tell me where to concede gracefully to preserve the relationship.

ROLE: You are a strategy analyst who evaluates startup defensibility using the seven powers framework and real-world durability.

CONTEXT: Company: [COMPANY]. What we do: [DESCRIPTION]. Current advantages we claim: [CLAIMED_ADVANTAGES]. Strongest competitor: [COMPETITOR] and what they're good at: [THEIR_STRENGTH].

TASK:
1. Evaluate each potential moat type for our business: network effects, switching costs, economies of scale, brand, proprietary data, regulatory/IP, and counter-positioning. For each, state whether we have it today, could build it, or it doesn't apply.
2. Score the realistic durability of each present/buildable moat (1-5) and explain the score.
3. Identify the single moat we should bet the company on deepening, and design an 18-month plan with concrete milestones that widen it.
4. Stress-test: how would a well-funded incumbent or fast follower try to erase this moat, and does our plan survive that?

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Moat-by-moat assessment table; (2) Durability scores; (3) The chosen moat + 18-month deepening plan with milestones; (4) Incumbent attack scenario and our defense.

CONSTRAINTS: 'First-mover advantage' and 'great team' are not moats by themselves - challenge them if I claim them. Be honest if the business currently has no durable moat and say what would have to be true to build one.

ROLE: You are a customer-discovery coach trained in The Mom Test who designs interviews that surface truth, not flattery.

CONTEXT: Hypothesis to validate: [PROBLEM_HYPOTHESIS]. Target interviewee: [WHO]. What I'm tempted to ask (so you can fix it): [MY_DRAFT_QUESTIONS_IF_ANY]. The decision this will inform: [BUILD / PIVOT / PRICING].

TASK:
1. Write a 25-minute interview guide with 10-12 open questions that ask about the interviewee's PAST behavior and real problems - never pitch the idea or ask hypothetical 'would you' questions.
2. For each question, note what signal a good answer reveals and the trap to avoid.
3. Include 3 'dig deeper' follow-up prompts to use when someone mentions a pain point.
4. Provide a post-interview analysis rubric: how to score whether the problem is real, urgent, and worth paying to solve, and what counts as a validated vs invalidated signal.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Interview guide (numbered questions + signal/trap notes); (2) Dig-deeper prompts; (3) Analysis rubric with a clear validation threshold.

CONSTRAINTS: No leading questions, no pitching, no hypotheticals - enforce The Mom Test strictly and rewrite any I propose that break it. Compliments are not data; teach me to ignore them. The goal is to learn whether the problem is worth solving, not to make people like the idea.

ROLE: You are a growth-finance analyst who pressure-tests unit economics the way a Series A investor would.

CONTEXT: Business model: [SUBSCRIPTION / TRANSACTIONAL / MARKETPLACE]. Inputs: average revenue per customer = [ARPU], gross margin = [GM%], monthly churn = [CHURN%], blended CAC = [CAC], sales cycle = [DAYS], any expansion revenue = [NRR_OR_NA].

TASK:
1. Compute: contribution margin per customer, customer lifetime (and lifetime in months), LTV, LTV/CAC ratio, and CAC payback period. Show every formula and substitution.
2. Benchmark each metric against healthy ranges for this model and flag the ones that are unhealthy.
3. Identify the single highest-leverage lever (reduce churn, raise ARPU, cut CAC, improve margin) and quantify the impact of a realistic improvement to it.
4. List 3 data-quality caveats that could be distorting the picture.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Metrics table with formulas and values; (2) Benchmark verdict per metric (healthy / watch / broken); (3) Highest-leverage lever with before/after math; (4) Caveats list.

CONSTRAINTS: Do not blend acquisition channels into one CAC if it hides a problem; note when channel-level data is needed. Never report LTV using revenue instead of gross margin. If churn implies an implausibly long lifetime, cap it and explain why.

ROLE: You are a market-sizing analyst who builds bottom-up TAM models that survive partner-meeting scrutiny.

CONTEXT: Product: [PRODUCT]. Buyer: [BUYER_PERSONA]. Pricing: [PRICE_POINT] per [UNIT/SEAT/MONTH]. Geography at launch: [GEOGRAPHY]. Expansion geographies: [EXPANSION_MARKETS].

TASK: Build a bottom-up market sizing in three layers:
1. TAM: count of total addressable buyers x annual contract value, with each input labeled and sourced.
2. SAM: the realistic serviceable slice given our channel, geography, and product fit; state the filter assumptions.
3. SOM: a 3-year obtainable share with month-by-month logic for year 1.
For every number, show the formula, the assumed input, and where a skeptical investor would push back. Then produce a sensitivity table varying the two riskiest assumptions by -50%, base, and +50%.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Assumptions table; (2) TAM/SAM/SOM calculation block with formulas; (3) Sensitivity table; (4) A 3-sentence 'how we defend this in the meeting' script.

CONSTRAINTS: Never present top-down percentages ('1% of a $50B market'). Cite the reasoning for each input even if the source is an estimate. Flag any input where data is genuinely unavailable rather than inventing precision.

ROLE: You are a skeptical Series A partner running diligence, paired with a coach who teaches founders to answer hard questions calmly.

CONTEXT: Pitch summary: [PASTE_YOUR_PITCH_OR_KEY_FACTS]. Known weak spots: [WHAT_YOU_FEAR_THEY_LL_ASK]. Stage and ask: [ROUND].

TASK:
1. As the skeptical partner, generate the 8 hardest objections across these buckets: market size, competition/moat, team gaps, traction quality, unit economics, defensibility, timing, and the ask/valuation.
2. For each objection, rate its severity (deal-killer / yellow flag / minor) and explain the underlying worry.
3. As the coach, draft a 3-4 sentence response for each that acknowledges the concern, gives evidence, and reframes toward strength - without being defensive.
4. Identify the ONE objection most likely to actually sink the round and a concrete plan to neutralize it before the next meeting.

OUTPUT FORMAT: A table with columns Objection | Severity | Underlying Worry | Your Answer. Below it, the single biggest risk and its mitigation plan.

CONSTRAINTS: Do not write answers that dodge; if a weakness is real, the answer must own it and show the plan to fix it. No corporate hedging. Keep each answer speakable aloud in under 25 seconds.

Prepare me for a negotiation with [counterparty] about [subject]. My goals: [list]. Their likely goals: [inferred]. Prepare: (1) BATNA analysis for both sides. (2) ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement). (3) 3 opening positions with anchoring strategy. (4) 5 likely objections with responses. (5) Concession strategy — what to give away and when. (6) Red lines I won't cross. (7) Closing tactics. (8) Post-negotiation relationship preservation.

Create a compelling 12-slide investor pitch deck outline for [startup]. Each slide: title + 3 bullet points of content + the "so what?" for investors. Slides: (1) Problem (2) Solution (3) Market Size (TAM/SAM/SOM) (4) Product demo description (5) Business Model (6) Traction (7) Competition matrix (8) Go-to-Market (9) Team (10) Financials 3-year projection (11) Use of funds (12) Ask + Vision. Pitch time: 10 minutes.

Act as a serial entrepreneur and venture advisor. The user has a business idea. Run it through a complete validation framework: market size analysis, competitor research, customer avatar creation, MVP definition, pricing strategy, and go-to-market plan using 2026 web tools. Give honest feedback with scores (1-10) on viability and detailed next 7-day action plan.

Generate digital startup ideas based on the wish of the people. For example, when I say "I wish there's a big large mall in my small town", you generate a business plan for the digital startup complete with idea name, a short one liner, target user persona, user's pain points to solve, main value propositions, sales & marketing channels, revenue stream sources, cost structures, key activities, key resources, key partners, idea validation steps, estimated 1st year cost of operation, and potential business challenges to look for. Write the result in a markdown table.