Prompts you can copy.

You are working with [YOUR NAME], a [YOUR ROLE] at [YOUR COMPANY].

Voice and format rules to apply to every response:
- British English. Use organise, analyse, prioritise. Never the American spellings.
- No em or en dashes. Use commas, semicolons, colons, parentheses, full stops.
- No contractions in formal output. Write "do not", not "don't".
- Lead with the answer. Do not preface with "Sure!" or "Great question".
- When asked for a deliverable, produce it directly. Skip the meta commentary.
- Numbers under ten written as words; ten and above as numerals.
- If you are uncertain, say so explicitly. Do not invent.

When drafting emails or client-facing prose:
- Match the recipient's likely register (formal for new clients, conversational for known ones).
- Never use exclamation marks except in direct quotes.
- Open with the point, not pleasantries.

When producing structured output (tables, lists, code):
- Tables for comparisons of three or more options.
- Bullets for parallel items; numbered lists only when order matters.
- Code in triple backticks with language tag.

Constraints:
- Never include "as an AI" or any meta statement about being a model.
- Never apologise for limitations; just state what you can and cannot do.

You are my inbox triage assistant. Given the emails below, produce a daily briefing for me to read with my morning coffee.

Format:

## Needs my response today
- One line per email. Sender, what they need, deadline if stated.

## Decisions I need to make
- One line per item. The decision, what is at stake, what info I would need.

## FYI, no action needed
- One line per email. Sender, topic.

## Anything I might be missing
- Threads where the sender is waiting on something I have not addressed.

Be ruthless. If an email is marketing, automated, or noise, do not list it. Keep the whole briefing under 250 words.

Emails:
{paste your inbox export here, or rely on the Gmail connector}

Draft a reply to the email below. Rules:

- Match the sender's register: if they wrote a short, casual message, reply in kind.
- Lead with the answer or the most important point.
- Keep it under 80 words unless the email genuinely requires more.
- British English. No em dashes. No contractions.
- Do not start with "Thanks for your email" or any other filler.
- If there is anything I should confirm before sending, list it as a separate "Confirm before sending" bullet at the bottom.

Original email:
{paste here}

My answer to their question:
{a sentence or two of what you want to say}

Below is an email thread. Extract the actions assigned to me, the actions assigned to others, and the decisions that have been made.

Output:

## Actions on me
- [What I need to do] — by [date if stated, "no date" if not]

## Actions on others
- [Name] — [what they should do]

## Decisions made
- Brief bullets.

## Still open
- Questions or items raised but not resolved.

If the thread is contradictory (someone changed their mind), reflect the latest position only.

Thread:
{paste here}

Below is a meeting transcript or note set. Produce a summary in this exact shape:

## Decisions made
- One line each. The decision, briefly.

## Actions
- [Owner name] — [the action] — by [date if stated, "TBC" if not].

## Open questions
- Things raised but not resolved.

## Recap (3 to 5 sentences)
- Plain English summary of what happened. No buzzwords.

Voice: British English, no em dashes, no contractions, no marketing language. If owners or dates were not stated, mark TBC rather than guess.

Transcript:
{paste here}

You are reviewing a compliance document or contractor submission. Reference materials (project rules, H&S requirements) are in this Project.

Produce a review in this format:

## Verdict
- One line: ACCEPT / ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS / REJECT.

## Reasoning
- Three to five bullets explaining the verdict against the project rules.

## Gaps the contractor must close
- Numbered list. Each gap names the rule it violates and the corrective evidence needed.

## Risks I would flag for human review
- Anything that is plausible but I cannot verify from the documents alone. Be explicit about uncertainty.

Voice: British English, no contractions. Cite specific clause numbers from the project rules where possible. Never invent a clause number.

Document under review:
{paste or attach}

You are comparing contractor quotes for the same scope of work. The scope of work is described in the Project knowledge.

Produce a comparison table in this exact format:

| Item | Quote A | Quote B | Quote C |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total price (ex VAT) | £X | £X | £X |
| Labour cost | £X | £X | £X |
| Materials cost | £X | £X | £X |
| Programme duration | X weeks | X weeks | X weeks |
| Inclusions noted | ... | ... | ... |
| Exclusions noted | ... | ... | ... |
| Caveats / assumptions | ... | ... | ... |

Then a section "Where the quotes diverge" listing the top three differences in scope or assumptions that explain price gaps.

Then a section "What to clarify before deciding" listing the open questions I should put back to each contractor.

Voice: British English. Numbers as numerals. Never invent figures; if a quote does not state something, write "Not stated".

Quotes:
{paste all quotes here, or attach to the Project}

Build me an interactive sales proposal as an Artifact. The proposal is for {client name} for {scope: refurb / new build / extension / fit-out}.

Required inputs the Artifact should expose as form fields:
- Site area in square metres
- Finish level (Basic / Standard / Premium)
- Number of bedrooms / units
- Programme duration in weeks
- Any optional add-ons (list to be confirmed)

The Artifact should:
- Render a single-page proposal layout with sections: Cover, Scope, Approach, Timeline, Pricing, Next steps.
- Recalculate the headline price live as the inputs change.
- Use realistic UK construction unit prices for the chosen finish level.
- Render any pricing assumptions as small footnotes.
- Use Consilix or {company} brand colours if I provide them; otherwise use a neutral professional palette.

Voice: British English, no em dashes, no marketing language. Lead with the scope and the price.

Output the Artifact directly.

Produce a research brief on [TOPIC] in this format:

## What we know with confidence
- Five to seven bullets. Each one citation-backed. Use (Source, year) inline.

## What is disputed or uncertain
- Bullets covering claims where credible sources disagree.

## What is changing fast right now
- Things where the situation in 2026 differs from a year ago.

## Implications for [MY CONTEXT]
- Three to five bullets specific to my business or decision.

## Sources
- Numbered list. Every source cited above must appear here with a URL.

Voice: British English, no em dashes. Cite specific publishers and dates. If a fact lacks a credible source, mark it "[unverified]" rather than including it as a confident claim.

Topic to research: {topic}
My context: {one-line about your business / decision}

Rewrite the text below applying my voice rules (already set in Custom Instructions): British English, no em dashes, no contractions, no marketing language, lead with the answer.

If the original text uses any forbidden words (transform, leverage, streamline, cutting-edge, world-class, robust, harness, game-changing), replace them with concrete alternatives. Do not soften my points. Do not lengthen. If the original is too long, shorten.

Text to rewrite:
{paste here}

Below are my notes from the week. Turn them into a weekly update for the team.

Format:

## This week we
- Three to five bullets on what got done.

## Wins
- One or two highlights. Specific, not generic.

## Blocked or worth raising
- Anything that needs help, money, or a decision.

## Next week
- Three to five priorities.

Voice: British English, no em dashes, no exclamation marks, no marketing language. Conversational but professional. Under 300 words total.

Notes:
{paste here}

I want to build a Claude skill (a reusable instruction module). Walk me through it conversationally.

Start by asking me:
1. What does the skill do? Describe the task in one paragraph.
2. What inputs does it need from the user each time?
3. What outputs does it produce? Are they prose, structured data, an Artifact, or a side effect?
4. What house rules apply (voice, format, do-not-do)?
5. Are there any reference materials it should always consult?

After my answers, draft a SKILL.md following the Anthropic skill convention:
- Frontmatter with name, description, expected inputs, outputs.
- A body explaining the skill's responsibilities, constraints, and how to invoke it.

Then propose how I install and test it. Be specific: file path, where to drop it, how to verify it loads.

I want to generate an image. Help me write a precise brief for Higgsfield MCP.

Ask me:
1. What is the image for? (Hero, social, deck slide, marketing collateral)
2. Subject and scene in one sentence.
3. Style: photographic, illustrated, hand-drawn, 3D render, painterly, brutalist, minimalist?
4. Mood and time of day.
5. Aspect ratio and use case (1:1 social, 16:9 hero, 9:16 vertical).
6. Anything to avoid (no people, no text in the image, no logos).

Then produce the actual prompt string to paste into Higgsfield. Make it specific enough that the first generation gets close.

Summarise the document below for a busy senior reader. Format:

## In one sentence
- What this document is and why it matters.

## The five things you must know
- Numbered bullets, each two sentences max.

## What it asks the reader to do
- Explicit asks, deadlines, sign-offs.

## Risks or red flags
- Anything that should prompt a deeper look before agreeing.

## Numbers worth knowing
- Specific figures, with units and dates.

Voice: British English, no em dashes, no filler. Quote exact phrasing for any commitment or liability claim. If the document is unclear on something material, note it.

Document:
{paste or attach}

I am deciding between three options. Help me decide.

Options:
A: {describe option A}
B: {describe option B}
C: {describe option C}

Criteria that matter to me (in order of weight):
1. {criterion}
2. {criterion}
3. {criterion}

Output:

## Comparison matrix
| Criterion | Weight | A | B | C |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

(Rate each option 1-5 against each criterion. Multiply by weight.)

## My honest recommendation
- One option, one paragraph. Specific to my context.

## What I would change my mind for
- The single piece of new information that would flip the call.

Voice: British English. Direct. Do not present each option as "valid" — pick.