40+ ChatGPT & AI prompts for Startups & Founders

**Role:** Founder who has raised 4 rounds. You've watched 100+ pitches and learned that decks that get funded tell a story of inevitability — not a feature tour.

**Context:** Company: [name + stage]. Stage of pitch: [seed | A | B]. The thesis: [why this company has to exist in this world]. Traction: [the 2-3 metrics that prove it]. The ask: [round size + use of funds].

**Task:** Outline the deck.

1. Slide 1 (title): company name + 6-word tagline + ask in the corner. The tagline is the thesis distilled.
2. Slide 2 (the wedge): the specific moment-in-time pressure that makes this company possible NOW. Not "AI is hot" — "GPT-4 made [X] economically possible for the first time."
3. Slide 3 (the problem): a specific moment a specific person experiences — with their name, their role, their cost. Make it visceral.
4. Slide 4 (the why-now): the technology / regulatory / cultural shift that made the problem solvable.
5. Slide 5 (the product): one screen / one demo. Not a feature list — the moment of magic.
6. Slide 6 (traction): the 2-3 metrics that prove the thesis. Growth chart, customer logo wall, retention curve.
7. Slide 7 (market): TAM with a defensible bottom-up estimation. Not "$50B market" — "10,000 companies × $50K ACV = $500M reachable."
8. Slide 8 (competition): 2x2 with axes that put YOU in the empty quadrant. The two axes are the customer's actual decision criteria.
9. Slide 9 (team): why this team specifically can win. Founder-market fit, not pedigree.
10. Slide 10 (ask + use of funds): $ amount, valuation expectations if mentioned, 3 specific milestones the money buys.

**Constraints:**
- One thesis runs through every slide
- No "$X B market" without a bottom-up estimation
- Competition slide must put YOU in the empty quadrant (and the axes must matter)
- Team slide is founder-market fit, not "ex-Google"
- Use of funds is 3 specific milestones, not "general operations"

**Output format:** Slide-by-slide outline · headline + body bullets + speaker notes (≤30 words per slide).

**Role:** Founder of a Series B SaaS who writes essays that 50,000 people read. You sound like a founder, not a brand — you have opinions, you've been wrong before, and you don't hedge.

**Context:** Thesis you want to argue: [the specific claim — 1 sentence]. Why this thesis matters now: [the forcing function]. Two stories you'll tell: [#1 — from your own experience, #2 — from a customer or someone you observed].

**Task:** Write the essay.

1. Hook paragraph (75-100 words): start with a concrete moment, not an abstract claim. The reader should feel they're in a specific place at a specific time.
2. Thesis paragraph (50-75 words): the claim, in plain language. Not academic, not hedged. Make it disagree-able.
3. Story 1 (200-300 words): your own experience that supports the thesis. Specific timeline, specific people (by role if not name), specific quote if any.
4. Story 2 (200-300 words): the customer or observed example. Same specificity bar.
5. Synthesis (150-200 words): what the two stories share. Where they're different. The pattern.
6. One bet (50-75 words): based on this thesis, here's what you're betting on (in your company, in your time, in your money). Make it falsifiable.
7. Close (1-2 sentences): one sentence that calls back the hook image. Earn the ending.

**Constraints:**
- No three-letter acronyms without first defining
- One hedge per essay max
- No "I think" / "I believe" — say it directly
- The bet must be specific enough that you could be proven wrong within 18 months

**Output format:** Markdown essay · 7 paragraphs · ≤1500 words · suitable for Substack/Medium/personal blog.

**Role:** SaaS pricing strategist who has set pricing for 40+ B2B products from $0 to $50K ACV. You think in willingness-to-pay distributions, not gut feel.

**Context:** Product: [name + what it does]. Cost to deliver per customer: $[X]/month (gross). Time horizon: launch pricing for next 12 months. Target gross margin: [Y]%. Competitor anchor pricing: [list 3 comparable products + their tiers].

**Task:** Propose a 3-tier pricing structure with rationale grounded in willingness-to-pay, not cost-plus.

1. Identify the value driver. What specific outcome does the customer get? Quantify it in dollars saved or revenue gained.
2. Estimate willingness-to-pay for that outcome — give a low/medium/high band based on the competitor anchors.
3. Propose 3 tiers with names, prices, gating logic. Name the ONE feature per tier that drives the upgrade.
4. Add an anchor or decoy tier if the math benefits from it.
5. Test with 3 customer archetypes: under-budget, mid-budget, over-budget. For each, predict which tier they pick and why.

**Constraints:**
- Show willingness-to-pay reasoning, not cost-plus math
- Price points should not be round (avoid $99) unless deliberately positioning premium
- Annual pricing is 16-20% off monthly (the magic range)
- For each tier: what's IN, what's OUT, what's the gate to the next tier

**Output format:** Markdown · 5 sections · tier comparison table · willingness-to-pay rationale per tier.

**Role:** Comms lead at a Series B startup. You write press releases the way YC writes batch announcements: sharp lede, no ornament, one quote that sounds like a human said it.

**Context:** Company: [name]. What we're announcing: [the news — launch, raise, partnership]. Why it matters: [the wedge — what changes in the market because of this]. Founder quote source: [their actual tone in 1:1 conversation, not their Twitter voice].

**Task:** Write the press release. YC-tone: no "thrilled to announce," no "leading provider of."

1. Headline: 8-12 words. Specific action verb. No adjectives.
2. Sub-headline: 1 sentence that contextualizes the news.
3. Lede paragraph: 50-75 words. Who, what, when, why-it-matters. Front-load the specific number.
4. Body paragraphs (2): one on the technical/product specifics, one on the market context.
5. Founder quote: 1 paragraph in the founder's actual voice. Not "I'm excited" — say what they'd say at a dinner.
6. Boilerplate: 2 sentences max. What the company does + where to learn more.

**Constraints:**
- No "we believe" / "we think"
- One specific number minimum (revenue, users, latency, $ raised)
- Forbidden words: "thrilled," "delighted," "premier," "leading," "world-class," "innovative"
- Founder quote ≤60 words

**Output format:** Standard press release format · 7 sections · ≤500 words total.

**Role:** Repeat founder writing your 14th monthly investor update. You write the update you wanted to read as an angel — calm, concrete, no spin.

**Context:** Stage: [seed/A/B]. Last month's bar metric: [what you committed to]. North star: [the one metric you live or die by]. The miss you're tempted to bury: [the honest one]. Asks for this month: [3 specific items].

**Task:** Write a monthly investor update that an LP could forward to a co-investor without editing.

1. TL;DR: 1 sentence. The month in one line. Honest.
2. Wins: 3-5 specific items. Each one with a number, a name, or a customer. No "we made progress on X."
3. Misses: 2-3 specific items. Each one named with what you'll change. No "we're still working on Y."
4. Numbers table: ARR, net new logos, gross churn, runway, headcount. Always with last month's number for comparison.
5. Asks: 3 specific items — intros to named people, hires you're filling, advice you need. Never "thoughts welcome."
6. Next 30 days: 1-2 commitments you're willing to be graded on.

**Constraints:**
- Wins ↔ Misses must have roughly equal sentence count
- Every metric has its prior-month comparison
- No vanity metrics (page views, NPS, social followers)
- Max one hedge per paragraph

**Output format:** Markdown email · 6 sections · 1 numbers table · ≤700 words.

ROLE: You are a startup advisor who helps co-founders reach fair, durable equity splits and avoid the resentment that kills companies.

CONTEXT: Co-founders: [LIST_NAMES_AND_ROLES]. Who had the original idea: [PERSON]. Who is full-time vs part-time: [STATUS_EACH]. Relative experience and what each brings: [CONTRIBUTIONS_EACH]. Capital invested by each: [CASH_IN]. Expected future commitment: [RUNWAY_COMMITMENT].

TASK:
1. Walk through a structured split using weighted factors: idea origination, full-time commitment, prior risk/opportunity cost, domain expertise, capital contributed, and role criticality. Assign weights and produce a suggested percentage range (not a false-precise single number).
2. Explain why equal splits are often fine and when they aren't, given our specifics.
3. Recommend a vesting structure (cliff + schedule) and explain why founders need it even when they trust each other.
4. Propose 'what if' clauses: a co-founder leaves early, goes part-time, or underdelivers - and how to handle each fairly in advance.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Weighted-factor table with suggested split range; (2) Equal-vs-unequal reasoning; (3) Vesting recommendation; (4) Founder-departure scenario clauses to agree on now.

CONSTRAINTS: Not legal advice - a lawyer should paper the agreement and 83(b) elections. Push for a conversation, not a dictated number. Emphasize that the split must feel fair years from now, not just today. Flag any setup likely to breed resentment.

ROLE: You are a fundraising research lead who builds tiered investor target lists that maximize meeting-to-term-sheet conversion.

CONTEXT: Company: [COMPANY], a [STAGE] [SECTOR] startup. Round: [AMOUNT] at [VALUATION_OR_CAP]. Geography: [LOCATION]. Notable traction: [TRACTION]. Existing investor/advisor network: [PEOPLE_WHO_CAN_INTRO].

TASK:
1. Define the ideal investor profile: stage, check size, sector focus, geography, and a 'must-not' filter (e.g., funds with a competing portfolio company).
2. Organize targets into three tiers - Tier 1 (dream-fit leads), Tier 2 (strong fits), Tier 3 (fillers/momentum) - and explain what qualifies a fund for each tier.
3. For each tier, describe the outreach approach and the ideal sequencing (who to pitch first to build momentum vs. saving the best lead).
4. Map warm-intro paths: for the profile of investor I should pursue, what kinds of mutual connections to look for and how to ask for the intro (give an intro-request blurb template).

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Ideal investor profile + must-not filter; (2) Tier definitions and outreach approach per tier; (3) Recommended sequencing strategy; (4) Warm-intro request template.

CONSTRAINTS: Prioritize fit over brand prestige - a perfect-stage fund beats a famous mismatched one. Warn against pitching your top choice first before the pitch is battle-tested. Do not fabricate specific fund names or partner details; work from profiles unless I provide names.

ROLE: You are a pre-seed pitch coach who knows how to make early, thin traction feel like genuine momentum without lying.

CONTEXT: We're pre-revenue or barely post-revenue. What we actually have: [WAITLIST / PILOTS / LOIs / USAGE / INTERVIEWS / REVENUE]. Specific numbers: [RAW_NUMBERS]. Time elapsed: [HOW_LONG]. Strongest qualitative signal: [BEST_QUOTE_OR_BEHAVIOR].

TASK:
1. Identify which of our signals are the most investor-credible and which are vanity. Rank them.
2. Reframe the strongest signals as evidence of (a) demand, (b) engagement/retention, and (c) willingness to pay - using ratios and trends rather than raw totals where it's more honest and compelling (e.g., week-over-week growth, conversion, repeat usage).
3. Construct a 4-sentence traction paragraph for the deck and a 30-second spoken version.
4. Name the ONE proof point we should go get in the next 30 days that would most de-risk the round, and how to get it cheaply.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Signal ranking (credible vs vanity); (2) Reframed evidence under demand/engagement/willingness-to-pay; (3) Deck paragraph + 30-second script; (4) The single highest-value proof point to acquire next, with a cheap plan.

CONSTRAINTS: Never inflate or imply numbers we don't have. If a metric is genuinely weak, advise leading with the qualitative insight or team instead. Reject vanity metrics (raw signups with no engagement) as the headline.

ROLE: You are a Series A advisor who tells founders the truth about whether they're ready and what gap to close first.

CONTEXT: Current metrics: [ARR_OR_REVENUE], growth rate [GROWTH], net revenue retention [NRR], gross margin [GM], CAC payback [PAYBACK], logo count [CUSTOMERS]. Category: [CATEGORY]. Months of runway: [RUNWAY]. The Series A narrative we'd tell: [NARRATIVE].

TASK:
1. Compare each of my metrics to typical Series A thresholds for my category and label each: clears the bar / borderline / below bar.
2. Assess the qualitative readiness: repeatable GTM motion, evidence of a real market, and a credible 'why we 10x from here' story.
3. Identify the 1-2 gaps that most block a strong Series A, and build a milestone roadmap (next 2-3 quarters) to close them, with the metric target for each.
4. Recommend whether to raise now, raise a bridge/extension, or wait - given runway and the gap timeline.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Metric-vs-bar table with labels; (2) Qualitative readiness assessment; (3) Top gaps + quarter-by-quarter roadmap with targets; (4) Raise-now / bridge / wait recommendation.

CONSTRAINTS: Use category-aware benchmarks - SaaS, marketplace, and consumer have different bars; ask or note which applies. Don't sugarcoat: if the company isn't ready, say so and protect them from a failed process that burns the network. Tie every recommendation to runway reality.

ROLE: You are a fractional startup CFO who plans runway around fundraising milestones, not just calendar months.

CONTEXT: Cash in bank: [CASH]. Monthly net burn: [BURN]. Monthly revenue and growth: [REVENUE_AND_GROWTH%]. Planned hires: [HIRES_AND_TIMING]. Round being raised: [AMOUNT] expected to close in [MONTHS]. The milestone that unlocks the next round: [NEXT_ROUND_MILESTONE].

TASK:
1. Project month-by-month cash for 18 months under the current plan: revenue, expenses (split fixed vs new-hire), net burn, and ending cash. Mark the month cash hits zero (default-dead month).
2. Compute the burn multiple (net burn / net new ARR) and interpret it against healthy thresholds.
3. Define the 3-4 concrete milestones the raise must buy to make the NEXT round fundable, and check whether the runway actually reaches them with a safety buffer.
4. Propose two scenarios: a default-alive path (cuts to extend runway) and an aggressive path (raise more, grow faster), with the trade-off of each.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) 18-month cash table; (2) Burn-multiple calc and verdict; (3) Milestone-to-runway alignment check; (4) Two scenarios with trade-offs.

CONSTRAINTS: Always include a runway buffer (assume the next raise takes longer than hoped). Show the arithmetic for burn and ending cash each month. If the plan is default-dead before the milestone, say so bluntly and prioritize the fix.

ROLE: You are an investor-relations writer who turns monthly updates into a strategic asset that drives follow-on capital and intros.

CONTEXT: Company: [COMPANY]. Month: [MONTH]. Headline metric and its trend: [KEY_METRIC_AND_CHANGE]. Supporting metrics: [SECONDARY_METRICS]. Wins this month: [WINS]. Lowlights/challenges: [WHAT_WENT_WRONG]. Specific help needed: [ASKS - hires, intros, advice]. Cash position/runway: [RUNWAY].

TASK: Write a monthly investor update with this structure:
1. TL;DR: 2-3 lines, the single most important thing first.
2. Metrics: a compact dashboard (this month vs last vs target) for the 3-5 numbers that matter.
3. Wins: 2-3 concrete, specific wins.
4. Lowlights & what we're doing about them: honest, with the fix.
5. Asks: 2-3 specific, easy-to-action requests with names/profiles where possible.
6. Runway and a forward-looking line.

OUTPUT FORMAT: A ready-to-send email with subject line, in the six sections above. Keep it under 400 words. End with a one-line tracker of last month's asks and whether they were met.

CONSTRAINTS: Lead with the most important number, good or bad. Never hide lowlights - investors fund founders who tell the truth. Asks must be specific enough to act on in one click. No walls of text; use short sections and a scannable metrics block.

ROLE: You are a fundraising operator who books first meetings from cold investor emails at a 25%+ reply rate.

CONTEXT: Founder: [YOUR_NAME], building [STARTUP] ([ONE_LINER]). Stage/ask: [ROUND_AND_AMOUNT]. Target investor: [INVESTOR_NAME] at [FIRM], known for [THEIR_THESIS_OR_PORTFOLIO]. Our most relevant proof point: [STRONGEST_TRACTION]. Mutual connection if any: [WARM_INTRO_OR_NONE].

TASK:
1. Write the initial cold email: under 130 words, subject line + body, with a specific reason you are emailing THIS investor (reference their thesis or a portfolio company), one concrete traction hook, and a single low-friction ask.
2. Write 3 follow-up emails (sent at day 4, day 9, day 16) that each add a NEW piece of information rather than 'just bumping this'.
3. Provide 3 alternative subject lines for A/B testing.

OUTPUT FORMAT: Label each email (Initial, Follow-up 1/2/3) with send-day, subject, and body. Then list the subject-line variants.

CONSTRAINTS: No flattery padding, no 'I hope this finds you well'. Every email must be skimmable on a phone in 8 seconds. The ask should never be 'can we hop on a call?' without giving a reason worth the call. Match the investor's known stage and check size; if there's an obvious mismatch, say so.

ROLE: You are a seed-stage pitch coach who has helped 40+ founders raise their first institutional round from top-tier VCs.

CONTEXT: My startup is [STARTUP_NAME], a [ONE_LINE_DESCRIPTION] for [TARGET_CUSTOMER]. We are raising a [ROUND_SIZE] seed round at a [TARGET_VALUATION] target. Traction so far: [TRACTION_METRICS]. Team: [FOUNDER_BACKGROUNDS]. Market: [MARKET_SIZE_OR_TAM].

TASK: Design a 12-slide seed deck. For EACH slide:
1. Name the slide and its single core message (one sentence the investor should remember).
2. List the 3-5 bullets or visuals it must contain.
3. Specify the one proof point or number that makes it credible.
4. Flag the most common investor objection this slide must preempt.
Then write a 90-second verbal narrative that strings all 12 slides into one coherent story arc (problem -> insight -> solution -> why now -> traction -> ask).

OUTPUT FORMAT: A numbered slide-by-slide table, followed by the verbal narrative as a single block. End with a 'Red Flags To Fix Before Sending' checklist of 5 items.

CONSTRAINTS: No buzzwords without a number behind them. Every claim must be falsifiable. If traction is weak, tell me how to reframe honestly rather than inflate. Assume the investor spends 3 minutes on the deck.

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.

You are a pragmatic startup validation coach who has killed more bad ideas than you have shipped. Your job is to stop me from building something nobody wants.

CONTEXT:
- Idea: [ONE_SENTENCE_IDEA]
- Target customer: [SPECIFIC_PERSONA]
- The painful problem I think it solves: [PROBLEM]
- Resources I have: [TIME_BUDGET] and [CASH_BUDGET]

TASK STEPS:
1. Restate the riskiest assumption behind this idea in one sentence.
2. Score demand, willingness-to-pay, reachability, and founder-fit from 1-10 with one line of reasoning each.
3. Design a 7-day validation test that costs under [CASH_BUDGET] and needs no product (e.g., landing page, manual outreach, fake-door).
4. Define the exact pass/fail signal (e.g., "X of Y prospects pre-pay").
5. List 3 cheaper alternatives my customer uses today and why they might not switch.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Riskiest Assumption (1 line)
- Scorecard (table: dimension | score | reasoning)
- 7-Day Test Plan (numbered)
- Go/No-Go Signal
- Switching Risks (bullets)

CONSTRAINTS: Be brutally honest, never flatter the idea, and refuse to suggest building an MVP until validation passes.

You are a founder wellbeing coach who treats burnout as an operational risk, not a personal failing.

CONTEXT:
- Current workload and stressors: [STRESSORS]
- Early signs I'm running on empty: [WARNING_SIGNS]
- What genuinely recharges me: [RECHARGE_ACTIVITIES]
- Non-negotiable life commitments: [COMMITMENTS]

TASK STEPS:
1. Turn [WARNING_SIGNS] into a personal early-warning checklist with severity levels.
2. For each severity level, prescribe a specific recovery action drawn from [RECHARGE_ACTIVITIES].
3. Design sustainable weekly guardrails (work hours, breaks, one full day off) that respect [COMMITMENTS].
4. Identify the top 2 stressors to reduce structurally, not just cope with.
5. Create a brief weekly self-check ritual to catch problems early.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Early-Warning Checklist (sign | severity)
- Recovery Protocol (severity -> action)
- Weekly Guardrails
- Structural Stress Reductions (top 2)
- Weekly Self-Check Ritual

CONSTRAINTS: Be supportive but practical, protect [COMMITMENTS] as fixed, treat rest as productive, and avoid generic self-care advice.

You are a fractional CFO for bootstrapped founders. You make cash flow simple and survival decisions clear.

CONTEXT:
- Cash on hand: [CASH]
- Monthly fixed costs: [FIXED_COSTS]
- Monthly variable costs: [VARIABLE_COSTS]
- Current monthly revenue: [REVENUE]
- Realistic monthly revenue growth: [GROWTH_RATE]

TASK STEPS:
1. Calculate current net burn and months of runway at today's numbers.
2. Project month-by-month cash for 12 months applying [GROWTH_RATE].
3. Identify the month I hit breakeven or run out, whichever comes first.
4. Build base, optimistic, and pessimistic scenarios with the key lever in each.
5. Recommend the earliest decision point and what action it should trigger.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Current Burn + Runway
- 12-Month Cash Projection (table: month | revenue | costs | ending cash)
- Breakeven/Zero Month
- 3 Scenarios (assumptions + outcome)
- Decision Point + Trigger

CONSTRAINTS: Show the math, be conservative in assumptions, flag when runway drops below 3 months, and never assume funding that isn't confirmed.

You are an opportunity scout for micro-SaaS founders. You hunt for small, boring, profitable software niches.

CONTEXT:
- My technical skills: [SKILLS]
- Industries or tools I know well: [DOMAIN_KNOWLEDGE]
- Time I can dedicate: [TIME]
- Monthly revenue I'd be happy with: [TARGET_MRR]

TASK STEPS:
1. Generate 5 micro-SaaS ideas that fit my skills and domain knowledge.
2. For each, describe the painful workflow it improves and who pays for it.
3. Score each on build effort, willingness-to-pay, competition, and maintenance load.
4. Reason through which one best balances feasibility and revenue toward [TARGET_MRR].
5. Recommend the top pick with a one-week validation step before building.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- 5 Ideas (name + painful workflow + payer)
- Scorecard (table: idea | build | WTP | competition | maintenance)
- Reasoning Toward Top Pick
- Recommendation + 1-Week Validation

CONSTRAINTS: Favor boring, niche, low-maintenance ideas over flashy ones, ensure each is buildable solo, and ground ideas in my real domain knowledge.

You are an M&A advisor who specializes in small, founder-run businesses and acqui-hires. You think like a buyer.

CONTEXT:
- The business: [BUSINESS]
- Revenue and profitability: [FINANCIALS]
- How dependent it is on me personally: [FOUNDER_DEPENDENCE]
- My rough exit timeline: [TIMELINE]

TASK STEPS:
1. Estimate a realistic valuation range and the multiple buyers in this niche typically pay.
2. Identify the factors that lower the price, especially founder dependence and concentration risk.
3. Reason through the 3 highest-impact changes to make the business more sellable.
4. Build a prioritized readiness plan mapped to [TIMELINE].
5. List the documentation a buyer will demand during due diligence.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Valuation Range + Typical Multiple
- Value Detractors
- Top 3 Sellability Improvements
- Readiness Plan (mapped to timeline)
- Due-Diligence Document Checklist

CONSTRAINTS: Be realistic about small-business multiples, prioritize reducing founder dependence, and avoid inflated valuation promises.

You are a decision-making advisor who helps founders think clearly when stakes are high and information is incomplete.

CONTEXT:
- The decision I'm facing: [DECISION]
- The options on the table: [OPTIONS]
- What I'm optimizing for: [GOAL]
- The deadline to decide: [DEADLINE]

TASK STEPS:
1. Classify the decision as reversible or one-way-door and explain what that implies about speed.
2. For each option, reason through best case, worst case, and most likely case.
3. Estimate rough expected value or strategic fit for each against [GOAL].
4. Surface the hidden assumption that, if wrong, flips the decision.
5. Recommend an option plus a small reversible test to de-risk it before fully committing.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Reversibility Classification
- Option Analysis (table: option | best | worst | likely)
- EV / Fit Ranking
- Key Hidden Assumption
- Recommendation + De-Risking Test

CONSTRAINTS: Match decision speed to reversibility, make assumptions explicit, and never present false certainty when the data is thin.

You are a pitch coach who has sat on both sides of the table. You stress-test stories until only the strong parts remain.

CONTEXT:
- My one-line pitch: [ONE_LINER]
- The problem and my solution: [PROBLEM_SOLUTION]
- Traction so far: [TRACTION]
- What I'm raising and why: [ASK]

TASK STEPS:
1. Critique the one-liner for clarity and memorability, then offer a stronger version.
2. Pressure-test the problem-solution narrative: is the pain urgent and the wedge believable?
3. Identify the 3 hardest questions an investor will ask and draft confident answers.
4. Assess whether [TRACTION] supports [ASK] and flag any credibility gaps.
5. Recommend the single strongest narrative thread to lead the pitch with.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- One-Liner Critique + Rewrite
- Narrative Stress-Test (verdict + fixes)
- Top 3 Tough Questions + Answers
- Traction-to-Ask Assessment
- Lead Narrative Recommendation

CONSTRAINTS: Be a tough but fair skeptic, ground every critique in investor logic, and never let weak claims pass unchallenged.

You are an operating-cadence coach who installs the weekly review habit that keeps solo founders on track.

CONTEXT:
- My key metrics: [KEY_METRICS]
- This week's numbers: [THIS_WEEK_NUMBERS]
- Last week's top priorities: [LAST_PRIORITIES]
- The quarter's main goal: [QUARTER_GOAL]

TASK STEPS:
1. Compare this week's metrics to last week and to the trajectory needed for [QUARTER_GOAL].
2. Assess each of last week's priorities as done, partial, or dropped, and ask why.
3. Surface the single biggest learning or surprise from the week.
4. Identify the one bottleneck most limiting progress right now.
5. Set the top 3 priorities for next week, ranked, each tied to the quarter goal.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Metrics Review (table: metric | this week | last week | on-track?)
- Priority Retrospective
- Key Learning
- Current Bottleneck
- Next Week's Top 3 Priorities (ranked)

CONSTRAINTS: Be honest about misses, always tie next week's priorities to [QUARTER_GOAL], and keep it focused enough to complete in 20 minutes.

You are a competitive intelligence analyst for indie founders. You find the soft spot in a crowded market.

CONTEXT:
- My product or idea: [PRODUCT]
- Top competitors: [COMPETITORS]
- My target customer: [CUSTOMER]
- My realistic strengths: [STRENGTHS]

TASK STEPS:
1. For each competitor, summarize who they serve, their pricing, and their biggest weakness.
2. Map the market on two axes I choose to reveal whitespace.
3. Identify the most underserved segment and the unmet need driving it.
4. Reason through whether my strengths let me credibly own that gap.
5. Recommend a wedge: the narrow entry point and the first message that lands.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Competitor Summaries (table: name | serves | price | weakness)
- Positioning Map (describe the two axes and where each player sits)
- Underserved Gap
- Fit Assessment
- Recommended Wedge + First Message

CONSTRAINTS: Base the wedge on a real gap and my real strengths, avoid attacking leaders head-on, and be honest if no viable gap exists.

You are a content strategist for technical founders who hate fluff. You build systems that compound, not one-off posts.

CONTEXT:
- My niche and expertise: [NICHE]
- Audience I want to reach: [AUDIENCE]
- Primary platform: [PLATFORM]
- Hours per week for content: [HOURS]

TASK STEPS:
1. Define 4 content pillars that map my expertise to my audience's problems.
2. Design a weekly cadence I can sustain in [HOURS], including a repurposing chain (one core piece into many).
3. Generate 15 specific post ideas spread across the pillars.
4. Write 3 hook examples that fit [PLATFORM] norms.
5. Define the one engagement metric I should track and a monthly review ritual.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Content Pillars (4 with rationale)
- Weekly System (cadence + repurposing chain)
- 15 Post Ideas (grouped by pillar)
- 3 Sample Hooks
- Tracking Metric + Review Ritual

CONSTRAINTS: Keep it sustainable for one person, prioritize depth over volume, and avoid generic advice that any niche could use.

You are a product minimalist who helps solo builders ship in weeks, not months. You delete features for a living.

CONTEXT:
- Product vision: [VISION]
- Full feature wishlist: [FEATURE_LIST]
- Core job the user hires the product for: [CORE_JOB]
- Build deadline: [DEADLINE]

TASK STEPS:
1. Identify the single core job and the one workflow that delivers it.
2. Sort every feature into Must-Have, Later, or Never using the core job as the filter.
3. Reason step by step about which Must-Haves can be faked manually or with no-code first.
4. Define the smallest lovable version that still earns a 'wow'.
5. Sequence the build into shippable slices under [DEADLINE].

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Core Job + Critical Workflow
- Feature Triage (table: feature | bucket | reasoning)
- Manual/No-Code Shortcuts
- Smallest Lovable Product (paragraph)
- Build Slices (ordered list)

CONSTRAINTS: Default to cutting, justify every Must-Have against the core job, and never let the MVP exceed [DEADLINE].

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.

I will ask of you to prepare a 1 page draft of a design partner agreement between a tech startup with IP and a potential client of that startup's technology that provides data and domain expertise to the problem space the startup is solving. You will write down about a 1 a4 page length of a proposed design partner agreement that will cover all the important aspects of IP, confidentiality, commercial rights, data provided, usage of the data etc.

You are a sales coach who teaches non-salesperson founders to close through genuine problem-solving, not pressure.

CONTEXT:
- What I'm selling: [OFFER]
- Typical buyer and their role: [BUYER]
- Their main objections: [OBJECTIONS]
- My average deal size: [DEAL_SIZE]

TASK STEPS:
1. Lay out a call structure: rapport, discovery, problem framing, solution, objection handling, close, next step.
2. Write 5 discovery questions that surface pain and budget without interrogating.
3. For each objection in [OBJECTIONS], script a calm, honest response.
4. Provide a low-pressure closing line and a clear next-step ask.
5. Add a post-call follow-up template to keep momentum.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Call Structure (stages with goals)
- Discovery Questions (5)
- Objection Responses (objection -> response)
- Closing Line + Next Step
- Follow-Up Template

CONSTRAINTS: No manipulation or false scarcity, always tie the close to the buyer's stated pain, and keep the tone consultative and authentic.

**Role:** Head of Engineering at a Series B startup. You've designed loops for 30+ senior IC roles and learned which stages predict success vs which produce false positives.

**Context:** Role: [title + level]. The 3 things THIS role uniquely needs: [list specific to the role, not generic "good engineer"]. The bar: [the one trait that's a deal-breaker if missing]. Team's last bad hire's gap: [if known — what we missed].

**Task:** Design the 5-stage loop.

1. Stage 1 (recruiter screen, 30 min): the questions that quickly filter — compensation alignment, location, basic background.
2. Stage 2 (hiring manager screen, 45 min): the depth question for the THIS-role-uniquely-needs trait #1. What a great answer looks like, what a thin answer looks like.
3. Stage 3 (technical / craft demo, 60-90 min): NOT a leetcode trivia. A real problem from the team's actual backlog. What signal we extract.
4. Stage 4 (cross-functional collaboration, 45 min): with a peer from a different function. Tests communication + influence-without-authority.
5. Stage 5 (exec / culture, 45 min): with VPE or CTO. Tests values + judgment under uncertainty.

For each stage: who runs it, what we're testing, what a pass looks like, what a fail looks like, what's the call-out flag (something that warrants extra debrief).

**Constraints:**
- No leetcode-style trivia at any stage
- Each stage has ONE primary signal — not 5
- Every stage has a calibrated "great answer" anchor
- Total loop ≤6 hours for candidate

**Output format:** 5 stage blocks · each with Who/What/Pass/Fail/Flag · plus loop summary table.

**Role:** Positioning consultant trained in April Dunford's "Obviously Awesome" method. You've repositioned 30+ B2B SaaS companies and learned which questions surface real positioning vs which produce taglines.

**Context:** Company: [name]. Current positioning (if any): [what we say today]. Best customer: [name + why they bought]. Best customer's competitive alternative: [what they considered or were using before].

**Task:** Run the 5-step positioning exercise and produce a positioning statement.

1. Competitive alternatives: what do customers compare us to? Not just direct competitors — also "doing it manually" or "hiring a person."
2. Unique attributes: what do we have that the alternatives don't? Be specific — features, integrations, expertise, pricing structure.
3. Value (and proof): what value do those attributes deliver? Quantify where possible. Cite a customer story.
4. Target market characteristics: who cares about that value the MOST? Be specific — company size, role, trigger event, tech stack.
5. Market category frame: what market are we IN, in the customer's mind? If we frame it wrong, we lose to the wrong alternatives.

**Constraints:**
- Be honest about what we DON'T have vs alternatives
- Target market must be narrow enough that we can name the persona
- Market category frame is a choice — show 2 options and pick one
- Final positioning statement ≤60 words

**Output format:** 5 numbered sections + final positioning statement + 1-sentence "what we will say in cold emails."

**Role:** Founder/CEO who has run 15 board meetings. You've learned that board decks that work tell ONE story — not a metrics dump.

**Context:** Quarter: [Q-N]. Company stage: [Series A/B/C]. The ONE story we want the board to walk out understanding: [one sentence]. The hardest question they'll ask: [be honest]. Updates since last meeting: [3-5 specific items].

**Task:** Outline the deck.

1. Slide 1 (cover + TL;DR): company name + Q-N + one-sentence "where we are."
2. Slide 2 (the story): the ONE thing we want them to understand. Not a metric — a state of the world.
3. Slide 3 (proof of the story): 3 metrics + 1 customer/employee quote that prove the story is true.
4. Slide 4 (what's working): 2-3 specific wins, each with the metric that backs it.
5. Slide 5 (what's broken): 1-2 specific misses, each with what you'll change. Be honest.
6. Slide 6 (the ask): 3 specific intros, hires, or decisions you need from the board.
7. Slide 7 (next quarter): 2-3 commitments you're willing to be graded on.
8. Slide 8 (appendix pointer): "Full metrics in appendix slides 9-25."

**Constraints:**
- Slide 2 must NOT be a metric — it must be a narrative state
- One story across the whole deck — every slide ties back
- Misses get equal stage time to wins
- Asks are specific (name a person, a role, a $ amount)
- ≤8 main slides + appendix

**Output format:** Slide-by-slide outline · headline + body bullets + speaker notes for each.

**Role:** Founder of a Series A startup. You've sent 800+ cold emails and learned which ones get replies in 24 hours vs which ones get filtered.

**Context:** You're emailing [target persona] at [target company]. The trigger event: [something specific that happened in their world this month — a launch, a hire, a tweet, a public win]. Your ask is [the one specific thing you want, e.g., a 15-min call, an intro to X, a piece of advice on Y].

**Task:** Write the cold email. Four lines maximum. Tone: peer-to-peer founder, not sales. No hedging, no "I hope this finds you well," no "wanted to reach out."

1. Line 1: Acknowledge the trigger event in your own words. Specific, observed. Not "I saw your launch" — "I read your Series A post and noticed you're hiring SREs before PMs, which is unusual."
2. Line 2: One sentence on why you're qualified to be in their inbox (not credentials — a relevant insight or experience).
3. Line 3: The ask, with a specific time. "15 minutes Tuesday or Wednesday next week?" — not "would love to chat sometime."
4. Line 4: One line that makes it easy to say no without awkwardness.

**Constraints:**
- ≤90 words total
- No "I" in line 1
- No three-letter abbreviations they haven't used publicly
- Subject line ≤6 words, lowercased, no clickbait

**Output format:** Subject + 4-line body + sign-off · plain text, no signature block.

ROLE: You are a non-dilutive funding strategist who helps startups win grants, R&D credits, and accelerator capital without giving up equity.

CONTEXT: Company: [COMPANY], working on [WHAT, especially any deep-tech/climate/health/research angle]. Location/jurisdiction: [COUNTRY_OR_REGION]. Stage: [STAGE]. Team's technical/research credentials: [CREDENTIALS]. How much we need and by when: [AMOUNT_AND_TIMELINE]. Revenue status: [REVENUE].

TASK:
1. Map the non-dilutive options that plausibly fit my profile and jurisdiction: research/innovation grants, R&D tax credits, government innovation programs, corporate challenge prizes, revenue-based financing, and accelerator stipends. For each, note typical size, dilution, effort, timeline, and fit for us.
2. Rank them by expected value (likelihood x amount) net of the application effort, and pick the top 2 to pursue.
3. For the #1 option, outline the winning application narrative: the angle to emphasize, the evaluation criteria to hit, and the 3 things reviewers most reward.
4. Flag the strings attached (reporting burden, IP claims, use-of-funds restrictions) so I go in clear-eyed.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Options map (size/dilution/effort/timeline/fit); (2) EV ranking + top-2 pick; (3) Winning-narrative outline for #1; (4) Strings-attached warnings.

CONSTRAINTS: Be realistic about effort-to-payoff - some grants cost more in time than they return; flag those. Do not invent specific program names or amounts; reason from program types and tell me to verify current details for my jurisdiction. Note that non-dilutive funding complements but rarely replaces a venture round for fast-scaling companies.

ROLE: You are a startup risk strategist who runs pre-mortems: assume the company died in 18 months, then work backward to why.

CONTEXT: Company: [COMPANY]. Stage and what we're betting on: [CORE_BET]. Key assumptions we're trusting: [KEY_ASSUMPTIONS]. Known fragilities: [WORRIES]. Runway: [RUNWAY].

TASK:
1. Pre-mortem: imagine it's 18 months from now and the company failed. Generate the 8 most plausible causes of death across categories: market (no demand), product (can't build it / no PMF), distribution (can't acquire profitably), money (ran out / couldn't raise), team (founder split, key departure), competition, regulation, and timing.
2. For each, rate likelihood (high/med/low) and impact, and identify the leading indicator that would warn us early.
3. Prioritize the top 3 existential risks and design a concrete mitigation or hedge for each, with the metric that tells us it's working.
4. Name the single assumption that, if wrong, kills the company fastest - and the cheapest experiment to test it now.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Pre-mortem cause-of-death list with likelihood/impact and early-warning indicator; (2) Top-3 existential risks + mitigations + tracking metric; (3) The kill-shot assumption and the experiment to validate it.

CONSTRAINTS: Be uncomfortable and specific - generic 'execution risk' is useless; name the actual failure mechanism. Prioritize existential risks over annoyances. Every mitigation must be actionable now, not someday. Don't let optimism soften the analysis; the point is to find what we're avoiding looking at.

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 startup financing strategist who helps founders choose a funding path that matches their ambition and life goals - not just the default of 'raise VC'.

CONTEXT: Business: [BUSINESS]. Realistic outcome size: [SMALL_LIFESTYLE / MID / VENTURE_SCALE]. Current revenue: [REVENUE]. Growth potential: [GROWTH]. Founder goals: [CONTROL / SPEED / OPTIONALITY / EXIT_TIMELINE]. Risk tolerance: [RISK].

TASK:
1. Evaluate four paths - angels/syndicates, institutional VC, revenue-based or debt financing, and bootstrapping - against my situation. For each: fit, what it demands of me, what it gives up, and the kind of company it pushes me to build.
2. Explain the 'venture treadmill' trade-off honestly: when raising VC is the right move and when it forces a swing-for-the-fences path that conflicts with my goals.
3. Recommend a primary path and a hybrid sequence (e.g., bootstrap to a milestone, then raise) if that fits better.
4. List the questions I should answer about myself before committing to the path.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Four-path comparison table; (2) VC trade-off analysis specific to me; (3) Recommended path + optional hybrid sequence; (4) Self-reflection questions.

CONSTRAINTS: Do not assume VC is the goal. If the business can't credibly return 10x+ a fund, say VC is the wrong fit and explain why. Be honest that raising money is a means, not an achievement. Tailor to the founder's stated life goals, not generic ambition.

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 a startup valuation advisor who helps founders justify a number without anchoring it to ego.

CONTEXT: Stage: [STAGE]. Raising: [AMOUNT]. Traction: [KEY_METRICS - ARR/growth/users]. Sector: [SECTOR]. Geography: [GEO]. The valuation I'm hoping for: [TARGET_VALUATION]. Comparable companies/rounds I know of: [COMPS_IF_ANY].

TASK:
1. Triangulate valuation from three angles: (a) recent comparable rounds at my stage/sector, (b) traction multiples (e.g., ARR multiple or growth-adjusted), and (c) the dilution-driven approach (raise amount / acceptable dilution implies post-money).
2. Reconcile the three into a defensible range and place my target inside or outside it with reasoning.
3. Explain what would justify the top of the range vs the bottom, so I know which proof points raise the number.
4. Provide a 3-sentence script for stating and defending the valuation in a meeting without sounding rigid.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Three-angle valuation triangulation with the math; (2) Reconciled range + verdict on my target; (3) Levers that move me up the range; (4) Defense script.

CONSTRAINTS: Valuation is set by what an investor will pay and the dilution you can stomach, not by a DCF fantasy - frame it that way. Show the dilution math explicitly. If my target is unrealistic, say so and explain the risk of over-pricing the round (down-round and signaling risk later).

ROLE: You are an early-stage talent advisor who sequences a startup's first 10 hires to maximize milestone progress per dollar of burn.

CONTEXT: Current team: [WHO_AND_ROLES]. The milestone the round must hit: [KEY_MILESTONE]. Biggest execution bottleneck right now: [BOTTLENECK]. Runway: [RUNWAY]. Cash budget for hires: [BUDGET]. Stage: [STAGE].

TASK:
1. Identify the next 3-5 hires in priority order, tied to unblocking the milestone - not org-chart filling. For each, state the gap it closes and the consequence of NOT hiring it.
2. For the #1 hire, write a role scorecard: mission, 3-5 outcomes (measurable, time-bound), must-have competencies, and 2 disqualifiers.
3. Recommend cash/equity bands appropriate to stage and role seniority, and flag when a contractor or fractional hire beats a full-time one.
4. Sanity-check the plan against runway: does adding these hires keep us default-alive to the milestone? Show the burn impact.

OUTPUT FORMAT: (1) Prioritized hire list with gap + consequence; (2) Full scorecard for hire #1; (3) Equity/cash bands + fractional-vs-FT guidance; (4) Runway impact check.

CONSTRAINTS: Hire to unblock the milestone, not to look bigger. Resist senior expensive hires before product-market fit unless they're the bottleneck. Always reconcile the hiring plan with runway - a hire that shortens runway below the milestone is a mistake; say so.

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.