Drafting, editing, and cutting without flattening your voice.
All Writing prompts
Writing
The Sentence You Actually Mean
Here is a paragraph from [document type] for [audience]: [paste]. For each sentence, tell me what claim it is making in plain words a 12-year-old would accept. Then rewrite the paragraph so every sentence makes exactly that claim — no softer, no broader. If a sentence turns out to be making no claim at all, tell me which one and why.
Use when a draft reads fine but sounds like it was written by a committee.
Why it works it forces a rewrite of meaning before style, so the plain version can't hide behind nicer adjectives.
Writing
Cut 30% Without Losing the Argument
Cut this by 30%: [paste]. Keep every number, every name, and every causal claim ("because", "so that", "which means"). Cut adjectives, throat-clearing, restated points, and any sentence that only sets up the next one. Show me the cut version, then list what you removed and why each removal was safe.
Use when you're over a word limit, or a reader said "too long" and you don't know what to lose.
Why it works a fixed percentage plus an explicit "do not delete" list turns editing into a ranking problem instead of a taste argument.
Writing
Find the Claim I Haven't Proven
Read this draft: [paste]. List every sentence that asserts something a skeptical reader could demand proof for. For each one, say whether the draft provides (a) a source, (b) an example, (c) nothing. Sort the "nothing" ones by how much the argument depends on them. Don't rewrite anything yet.
Use when before publishing anything argumentative.
Why it works it separates assertion from evidence mechanically, so the gap is visible as a list rather than felt as unease.
Writing
Rewrite for the Person Who Will Say No
My reader is [role] who will resist this because [their likely objection]. Here is my draft: [paste]. Rewrite the opening three sentences so the objection is acknowledged before it's argued with, using their vocabulary, not mine. Then tell me which paragraph will make them stop reading and what to do about it.
Use when a proposal, pitch, or request has to survive one specific skeptic.
Why it works it converts a vague "make it persuasive" into a named reader with a named objection, and makes the draft answer the objection in the reader's own words.
Writing
The Three Drafts
Write three versions of this opening: [topic / paste]. Version A is deliberately cautious — no claim that could be challenged. Version B is deliberately sharp — states the strongest defensible version of the argument. Version C is the one you'd actually publish. Label each, then tell me in one line what B risks that C doesn't.
Use when you don't know how bold to be.
Why it works generating deliberate extremes makes the middle option a choice instead of a default, and shows you the cost of each register.
Writing
Tone Match From Two Samples
Here are two things [person/brand] wrote: [sample 1] and [sample 2]. Describe their voice as five specific rules (sentence length, what they never say, how they open, how they close, how formal they get). Then write [new piece] following those five rules. Don't imitate phrases from the samples — imitate the rules.
Use when you have to write in someone else's voice (a client, an exec, a brand).
Why it works two samples let it separate the writer's habits from the topic's vocabulary; one sample usually just gets parroted.
Writing
Headline Stress Test
My headline: "[headline]". Article summary: [3 sentences]. Give me: (1) what a reader expects after reading it, (2) the three ways the article could disappoint that expectation, (3) two alternative headlines that promise only what the article delivers. No clickbait.
Use when you have a title and no way to tell if it's any good.
Why it works it asks for the failure modes of the headline, which is a question a person can answer honestly and a "does this sound good?" question cannot.
Writing
The Paragraph That Isn't Doing Work
For each paragraph in this draft: [paste], write one line stating its job (setup / evidence / objection / turn / conclusion). Then list any paragraph whose job duplicates another's, and any section missing a job it needs. Don't edit the prose.
Use when an essay or report feels heavier than its content.
Why it works it makes the model assign a job to every paragraph, which surfaces structural padding that line editing never catches.
Writing
Give the Reason, Not the Rule
These are my writing rules: [list them, e.g. no ellipses, no exclamation marks, sentences under 20 words]. For each rule, write the one-line reason a careful editor would give for it — the reader problem it solves, not a restatement. Then rewrite this draft [paste] by following the reasons rather than the rules. Where a reason and its rule disagree on a specific sentence, follow the reason and mark the sentence so I can see the judgement call.
Use when your style rules are being obeyed literally and the result still reads wrong.
Why it works a reason generalises to sentences the rule never anticipated, while a rule can only be followed or broken.
Writing
Cold-Read Audit
You have not seen this before and you do not know me. Read [draft]. Answer as a reader, not an editor: (1) what you think it is trying to do, (2) the first place you lost the thread, (3) the two sentences you would cut first, (4) anything you would have to ask the author before trusting it. Then, in one line, say whether the piece delivers what its opening promises. Do not rewrite it.
Use when a draft has been through several rounds of feedback and you can no longer tell whether it is good.
Why it works a session with no history cannot be loyal to earlier choices, so its objections are not softened by the conversation that produced the draft.
Writing
Chain With a Checkpoint at Each Step
We'll build [long deliverable] in four messages, one step each. Stop after every step. 1. Outline: sections in order, each with its claim in one sentence. 2. Evidence: for each claim, what supports it, or NOTHING. 3. Draft: prose following the outline, adding no new claims. 4. Cut: remove anything step 2 marked NOTHING, then tighten. After each step, write one line on what the next step will need from it. If step 1 produces a claim with no obvious evidence, flag it there rather than waiting for step 4.
Use when a long piece comes out wrong at the end and you can't tell which stage caused it.
Why it works a fixed artifact per step turns one opaque failure into a sequence you can reject early.
Writing
Source Ledger Before Draft
Topic: [topic]. Reader: [who]. Before drafting, build a three-column ledger: what I have given you as fact, what you would have to assert for the argument to work, and where each of those would have to come from. Mark anything you cannot source as needs source. Then draft using only the first column, and leave the needs-source markers visible where the argument has a hole. Do not fill the holes, and do not soften them either.
Use when the piece will contain facts you have not checked yet.
Why it works separating what you know from what you are about to assert, before drafting, stops the prose from making a guess sound settled.
Writing
Expand, Attack, Repair
Draft: [paste]. Pass one, expand: for each paragraph, add the specific detail it is missing, an example, a number I have supplied, or a consequence. Mark every addition ADDED. Pass two, attack: read it as someone who disagrees and name the weakest link in each paragraph. Pass three, repair: fix those weak links using only what is in the draft or marked ADDED. No new claims. Give me the final text and a list of what you repaired.
Use when a draft has the right shape and no meat.
Why it works running the three passes in a fixed order, with a ban on new claims during repair, stops the fix from becoming a rewrite full of unverified material.
Writing
Style Is Not Tone
Draft: [paste]. Describe its style using mechanics only: sentence length, clause structure, how it opens, how it ends, punctuation habits. Then describe its tone as attitude only: what the writer appears to feel about the subject. Rewrite it twice — once keeping the mechanics and changing the tone to [target tone], once keeping the tone and changing the mechanics to [target style]. For each version, name one sentence that could not have appeared in the original, and say why.
Use when Feedback says to make it sound better and you cannot tell whether that means mechanics or attitude.
Why it works Separating sentence mechanics from emotional stance turns one vague instruction into two dials you can set independently, and shows which one was actually wrong.
Writing
Three Openings, Three Arguments
Piece: [what it is, who reads it, what it must establish]. Give me three opening paragraphs, each built on a different argument: (1) [argument A], (2) [argument B], (3) whichever argument you think is stronger than both — state it first in one line. Do not vary only the wording. After the three, say which claim in each would need evidence I have not supplied, and which of the three is the safest if I cannot get that evidence.
Use when The opening is competent and forgettable.
Why it works Variants that differ in argument rather than wording turn the choice into a comparison you can actually make, and each one exposes a different evidence gap.
Writing
House Style Pass
Here is the style sheet I have to follow: [paste rules, or the relevant entries]. Here is the draft: [paste]. Go through the draft once and return a table with four columns: the text as written, the rule it breaks, the corrected text, and the rule's own wording so I can check you. Ignore anything the style sheet does not cover — if you think something is wrong but no rule applies, list it separately under "judgement calls, not rule breaks". Do not rewrite sentences that already comply. Return one row per rule break. If one sentence breaks three rules, return three rows. Do not list a rule the sentence does not break, and make sure the corrected text itself complies with every rule.
Use when a draft is finished and has to match a style sheet before it goes to a second reader.
Why it works it turns “make it consistent” into a diff against a supplied rule list, so every change is citable.
Writing
Voice Spec I Can Reuse
These three pieces are by [person or brand]: [sample 1], [sample 2], [sample 3]. Write me a one-page voice spec with five sections: sentence length and rhythm (with the range they actually use), how they open a piece, how they close one, words and constructions they never use, and how formal they get when the topic is technical. Give each rule one example pulled from the samples and one counter-example I could wrongly assume. End with three tests I can apply to a new draft to see if it is off-voice. No adjectives about the writing — rules only.
Use when you will write many pieces in one person's or brand's voice, not just one.
Why it works it outputs rules instead of prose, so the spec can be checked against a new draft and survives past the sample.
Every prompt assumes you will replace the brackets. If you copy one unchanged, you have
borrowed someone else’s brief.