AI Prompts for Claude for Analysis

I want to analyze [BROAD TOPIC OR SITUATION]. Help me define the most useful analytical question. Ask me: what decision this analysis needs to support, what I already know and what I am uncertain about, what the relevant timeframe is, and what a good answer would look like. Then propose three specific analytical questions ranked by relevance to my actual decision.

Here is my analysis so far: [PASTE]. Before we go further, identify the key assumptions I am making, including ones I may not have stated explicitly. Which assumptions are most critical to the conclusion? Which are most likely to be wrong? What would change if those assumptions were different?

I am trying to answer: [DESCRIBE QUESTION]. Here is what I currently know: [DESCRIBE]. Help me map: what this knowledge tells me directly, what I can reasonably infer from it, what I do not know that would significantly change my conclusion, and where I should focus my investigation to close the most important gaps.

I need to analyze [DESCRIBE SITUATION]. What is the most appropriate analytical framework for this type of question? Give me two or three options (e.g. SWOT, first-principles reasoning, scenario analysis, root cause analysis), explain when each is most useful, and recommend which fits my situation best.

I am conducting an analysis of [TOPIC]. Help me define the scope clearly: what is in scope and what is explicitly out of scope, what time period we are considering, what level of detail is appropriate for the decision at hand, and what we can assume as given versus what we need to analyze. A clear scope statement before we start will prevent scope creep.

Analyze this [DOCUMENT TYPE] thoroughly. I need: (1) a summary of what it proposes or argues, (2) the strongest points in its favor, (3) the weakest points or gaps, (4) the hidden assumptions, (5) what would need to be true for the conclusion to be wrong, (6) your overall assessment: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

I have this problem: [DESCRIBE PROBLEM]. Run a root cause analysis. Use a systematic approach: start with the observed symptom, identify the proximate cause, dig deeper to find the underlying cause, and identify the root cause. Give me the full causal chain and explain how you know when you have reached the actual root cause rather than another symptom.

I need to choose between these options: [LIST OPTIONS]. My evaluation criteria are: [LIST, e.g. cost, speed, risk, reversibility]. For each option, evaluate it against each criterion. Then give me your recommendation, explain your reasoning, and tell me what additional information would change your recommendation.

Analyze the risks of [DECISION OR ACTION]. For each risk: describe it specifically, estimate the probability and impact, identify what would cause it to materialize, and suggest a mitigation. Distinguish between risks I can control and risks that are external. Rank them by expected impact (probability x magnitude).

Here is my current conclusion: [STATE YOUR CONCLUSION]. The evidence I am basing it on: [DESCRIBE]. Play the most rigorous devil's advocate you can. Give me: the strongest case that my conclusion is wrong, the evidence I am ignoring or underweighting, an alternative conclusion that fits the same evidence, and what I would need to prove to rule out the alternative.

I am considering this action: [DESCRIBE]. Walk me through the second and third-order effects. Who else will this affect and how will they respond? What unintended consequences are likely? What does this look like six months and two years out? Where am I likely to be wrong in my initial prediction?

Analyze the strategic landscape for [MY ORGANIZATION/PRODUCT] in [MARKET/CONTEXT]. Who are the key players? What are the forces shaping how this market will evolve? What are the key strategic choices available to us? What is the most important decision we need to make in the next twelve months and why?

I am about to [DESCRIBE DECISION OR PROJECT]. Let's run a pre-mortem. Imagine it is two years from now and this has failed significantly. What went wrong? Walk me through the three most likely failure scenarios in detail. For each scenario, what early warning signs would have predicted it, and what could we do now to prevent it?

I have a disagreement with [DESCRIBE OTHER PARTY] about [TOPIC]. Here are the positions: [DESCRIBE BOTH]. Help me find the crux: the single most important point where we differ, whether it is a factual disagreement, a difference in values, or a difference in predictions about the future. What would each side need to see to update their position?

I face a recurring type of decision: [DESCRIBE]. I want a decision rule I can apply consistently rather than analyzing each case from scratch. Based on the factors that matter most in these decisions, propose a decision framework: when to do X, when to do Y, and what information I need to classify a new case correctly.

Write a structured memo presenting this analysis: [DESCRIBE ANALYSIS]. Audience: [DESCRIBE]. Format: (1) the question, (2) the short answer, (3) the evidence and reasoning, (4) key assumptions and their sensitivity, (5) recommendation. Be direct: lead with the conclusion, not the methodology: [PASTE FINDINGS].

Explain this analysis to an audience with no background in [FIELD]: [PASTE ANALYSIS]. Use concrete analogies, avoid jargon entirely, and focus on what the findings mean in practical terms. Keep the intellectual rigor but remove the technical barrier: [PASTE FINDINGS].

I have completed a complex analysis with many findings: [DESCRIBE OR PASTE]. What is the single most important insight? The one thing that, if a decision-maker understood it clearly, would most change how they think or act. Write a single sentence that captures it, then a paragraph that explains it.

I am presenting this analysis: [DESCRIBE] to [AUDIENCE]. What are the ten most likely questions or challenges they will raise? For each, write a concise response that is honest about limitations, does not overclaim, and keeps the focus on the most decision-relevant findings.

Write an executive summary of this analysis for a senior decision-maker who has five minutes. It must: lead with the most important finding, state the recommendation clearly, summarize the evidence in three bullet points, and flag the key uncertainty or caveat. Under 200 words: [PASTE FULL ANALYSIS].