ChatGPT prompts: 25 practical templates for better work

Context: I am preparing a first call with a [prospect type] in [industry]. We offer [offer].
Action: Build a discovery-call plan focused on the prospect’s needs.
Data: Use only this public or authorized information: [information].
Result: Provide 10 open questions grouped by objectives, current process, problems, impact, and decision criteria. Add a natural transition between groups.
Evaluation: Do not invent facts about the organization. Flag information that should be researched or requested.

Context: These are rough notes from a sales conversation: [anonymized notes].
Action: Turn them into a usable CRM summary.
Data: Remain strictly faithful to the notes.
Result: Use the headings Situation, Need, Impact, Objections, Mentioned decision-makers, Next step, and Missing information.
Evaluation: Clearly distinguish facts, prospect statements, and hypotheses. Add no information that is absent.

Context: After [meeting type], I need to write to [recipient role]. Our brand voice is [tone].
Action: Draft a concise, useful follow-up email.
Data: The confirmed points are [points]. The agreed next step is [step].
Result: Provide a subject line and an email of no more than 120 words with one call to action.
Evaluation: Do not create a promise, discount, or deadline that is not in the data.

Context: A prospect raised these objections: [objections]. Our offer genuinely covers [capabilities] and does not cover [limitations].
Action: Prepare honest responses for a salesperson.
Data: Use only the capabilities and limitations provided.
Result: For each objection, give an empathetic restatement, a clarifying question, a factual response, and a proposed next step.
Evaluation: Avoid pressure tactics and flag any objection requiring input from a product, legal, or security expert.

Context: I am following up with a [prospect type] after [event]. Here is the authorized history: [history].
Action: Write three personalized follow-up variants.
Data: Use only the history and this value proposition: [proposition].
Result: One direct version, one advisory version, and one very short version; no more than 90 words each.
Evaluation: Each version must give a concrete reason to reply, remain respectful, and avoid false urgency.

Context: [Company] is launching [offer] for [audience] through [channels]. The objective is [objective].
Action: Create a campaign brief ready for team review.
Data: Use [positioning, permitted evidence, constraints, budget, or timeline].
Result: Structure the answer as objective, audience, customer tension, message, proof, channels, deliverables, timeline, and indicators.
Evaluation: Flag missing data and invent no testimonial, customer result, or product benefit.

Context: We want to cover [topic] for [audience] at the [awareness/consideration/decision] stage.
Action: Propose 12 distinct, useful editorial angles.
Data: Our verifiable expertise is [expertise]. Existing content is [list].
Result: For each angle, give a promise, likely search intent, three subsections, and one primary source to consult—without inventing its URL.
Evaluation: Exclude repetitive, sensational, or unsupported angles.

Context: Here is an approved source text: [text]. The new audience is [persona], who understands [level] and wants [goal].
Action: Rewrite the text for this audience without changing the facts.
Data: Preserve the claims, limitations, and sources in the original.
Result: [format and length], in a [tone] voice and vocabulary accessible to [persona].
Evaluation: Separately list any source sentence that appears ambiguous or unsupported instead of strengthening it.

Context: We publish on [channels] for [audience]. This month’s objective is [objective], and our priority themes are [themes].
Action: Propose a four-week editorial calendar.
Data: Maximum frequency [frequency], available resources [resources], important dates [dates].
Result: A table with date, channel, topic, angle, format, funnel stage, CTA, and owner to confirm.
Evaluation: Balance educational and commercial topics, avoid repetition, and flag unresolved dependencies.

Context: This advertisement targets [audience] on [platform]: [ad copy].
Action: Analyze its clarity and propose an improvement.
Data: The permitted promise is [promise], available evidence is [evidence], and brand constraints are [constraints].
Result: A five-criterion diagnosis followed by three variants with headline, body copy, and CTA.
Evaluation: Add no figure, superlative, guarantee, or urgency that the data does not justify.

Context: I need to organize synthetic or anonymized customer requests. Our approved categories are [categories].
Action: Assign a category and indicative priority to each request.
Data: Requests: [list]. Priority rules: [rules].
Result: A table with Request, Category, Proposed priority, Reason, and Escalation required.
Evaluation: Infer no personal characteristics. Use “review required” when a rule does not support a conclusion. A human makes the final decision.

Context: A customer wrote: [anonymized message]. The applicable policy is [approved excerpt].
Action: Prepare an empathetic, solution-oriented response.
Data: Use only the message and policy provided.
Result: No more than 150 words, acknowledging the issue, stating confirmed information, and giving the next step and timeline only if supplied.
Evaluation: Admit no legal liability, promise no refund, and invent no deadline. Flag whether escalation is required.

Context: I want to turn this approved documentation into an FAQ: [documentation].
Action: Create questions customers would genuinely ask and answer them.
Data: The supplied documentation is the only permitted source.
Result: 12 question-and-answer pairs, with a direct first sentence and no more than 80 words per answer.
Evaluation: Add “to be confirmed by the team” when the source does not contain an answer.

Context: Here is an anonymized customer conversation: [conversation].
Action: Prepare a handoff summary for a human adviser.
Data: Remain faithful to the conversation.
Result: Use Request, Actions completed, Current status, Expressed sentiment, Commitments made, Next action, and Open questions.
Evaluation: Separate facts from interpretations and briefly quote the relevant passage when a commitment was made.

Context: We are designing a support journey for [product/service]. Request types include [types].
Action: Propose an escalation matrix for review by support, legal, and security leads.
Data: Available levels [levels], service hours [hours], existing rules [rules].
Result: A table with Signal, Proposed level, Team, Target time to confirm, Information to transfer, and Action forbidden to the bot.
Evaluation: Always escalate threats, sensitive data, disputes, security risks, and requests outside policy.

Context: Here are anonymized meeting notes: [notes].
Action: Create action-oriented meeting minutes.
Data: Use only the supplied notes.
Result: A five-line summary, confirmed decisions, actions with owner and due date when mentioned, open points, and risks.
Evaluation: Mark “unassigned” or “not defined” when an owner or date is missing. Do not turn a proposal into a decision.

Context: The current process is described here: [approved description]. Its users are [roles].
Action: Turn it into a clear internal procedure.
Data: Do not complete missing steps. Constraints: [tools, approvals, security].
Result: Objective, scope, prerequisites, numbered steps, controls, exceptions, owner, and version history.
Evaluation: Flag every ambiguity and place human approval before any irreversible action.

Context: We are comparing [vendors] for [need]. Here is their verified information: [data].
Action: Organize a factual comparison without choosing for us.
Data: Use only the supplied data and these weighted criteria: [criteria].
Result: Comparison matrix, missing information, risks, questions to ask, and a summary of trade-offs.
Evaluation: Give no score when required data is missing and invent no feature or price.

Context: These are the current steps in a process: [steps], their frequencies [frequencies], and tools used [tools].
Action: Identify potentially automatable tasks for further investigation.
Data: Security and approval constraints: [constraints].
Result: A table with Task, Trigger, Inputs, Output, Frequency, Risk, Human approval, and Complexity to confirm.
Evaluation: Do not present automation as feasible without a technical audit; exclude sensitive or irreversible decisions without human control.

Context: The team must review [deliverable or process] before [publication/delivery]. The internal standard is [rules].
Action: Turn the rules into an operational checklist.
Data: Use only the supplied rules.
Result: Checks grouped by preparation, content, compliance, approval, and archiving, with an Expected evidence column.
Evaluation: Each item must be observable and written as a yes/no question or value to enter. Flag contradictory rules.

Context: We are recruiting a [role]. The approved job description contains [responsibilities, essential skills, conditions].
Action: Draft a clear, inclusive job advertisement.
Data: Use only the approved criteria.
Result: Title, mission, responsibilities, essential skills, desirable skills, conditions, and recruitment stages.
Evaluation: Remove unnecessarily gendered or exclusionary wording without changing essential requirements. Invent no salary or benefit.

Context: A person is joining the team as [role]. Their approved 30-, 60-, and 90-day objectives are [objectives].
Action: Prepare an onboarding plan for manager approval.
Data: Contacts [roles], tools [tools], mandatory training [training].
Result: A week-by-week table with objective, activity, resource, owner, and observable sign of progress.
Evaluation: Infer nothing about the person and distinguish requirements, recommendations, and items still to confirm.

Context: I am training [audience] on [topic]. The approved learning objectives are [objectives], and the source documentation is [content].
Action: Propose materials for a [duration] session.
Data: Remain faithful to the documentation.
Result: Sequenced outline, key messages, examples, practical exercise, knowledge-check questions, and summary sheet.
Evaluation: Identify points requiring a demonstration or validation by a subject-matter expert.

Context: I am preparing a recurring one-to-one with a team member. The factual topics to cover are [topics].
Action: Create an agenda that supports a balanced conversation.
Data: Use no personal information beyond the supplied, authorized details.
Result: Opening, questions about work, blockers, support needed, development, decisions, and actions to confirm together.
Evaluation: Avoid psychological diagnosis, personality judgment, or conclusions about performance.

Context: Here is an internal announcement whose substance is approved: [text]. It is for [audience], and the desired tone is [tone].
Action: Improve its clarity without changing the announced decision.
Data: Preserve the exact dates, responsibilities, limitations, and contacts provided.
Result: Subject, one-sentence summary, structured message, expected actions, and channel for questions.
Evaluation: List any ambiguity that must be resolved before release and add no justification that was not supplied.