Best Claude Prompts (2026)

Write a 1,000 word argument for [position] on [topic]. Structure: (1) state the position clearly in the opening paragraph, (2) three supporting arguments each grounded in a specific mechanism or evidence, (3) steelman the strongest counterargument in one paragraph, (4) rebut it directly in the next paragraph, (5) close with the implication if the position is correct. Tone: authoritative but not dismissive of opposing views. Do not use hedging phrases like "it could be argued" or "some might say."

Rewrite this document in the voice of [target audience, e.g. "a senior partner at a law firm writing to a client" or "a product manager writing to engineers"]. Keep all the core facts and conclusions. Change: sentence structure, level of technicality, assumed background knowledge, and tone. Show me a before and after for each major section. Then give me three specific word-level changes that had the biggest impact. Original document: [paste here]

Write a persuasive essay arguing that [position]. Length: 800 words. After the essay, add a short section called "Where this argument is weaker" that honestly identifies two scenarios where the argument does not hold. This is for a reader who values intellectual honesty and will dismiss one-sided persuasion. Do not use the words leverage, robust, or transformative.

Review this system architecture and give me a structured analysis: (1) what it does well and why, (2) three specific risks or weaknesses with the exact scenario where each would cause a problem, (3) two alternative architectural decisions with their tradeoffs explained, (4) the one change you would prioritize and why. Be direct about weaknesses. Do not soften criticism with "one potential consideration might be." Architecture description: [paste here]

Explain what this code does to a non-technical product manager who understands the business context but not programming. Constraints: no jargon without definition, use a real business analogy for the core logic, explain what would break if this code were removed, and estimate in plain English how long this code took to write and why. Then write a one-sentence plain English summary they could put in a Slack message. Code: [paste here]

Refactor this code for readability and maintainability. For every change you make, add a comment directly above it explaining: what the original code was doing, why it was a problem, and what the refactored version does instead. Do not change the behavior. Flag any places where you were unsure if a change was safe. Code: [paste here]

Analyze this document and give me: (1) the three most important claims the author makes, (2) the evidence or reasoning used to support each claim, (3) the one assumption the entire argument depends on, (4) what the author does not address that a skeptical reader would immediately ask, (5) your overall assessment of how well the argument holds up. Be direct. If the argument is weak, say so specifically. Document: [paste here]

Analyze the competitive landscape for [company or product] in [market]. Structure: (1) who the three main competitors are and their positioning in one sentence each, (2) what each competitor does better than [company], (3) what [company] does better than each competitor, (4) the one gap no competitor is addressing well, (5) the most likely competitive threat in the next 12 months. Be specific. Do not write "it depends" without explaining what it depends on.

I am going to paste [number] sources on [topic]. After reading all of them, give me: (1) the central claim all sources agree on, (2) the main point of disagreement between sources and which side you find more convincing and why, (3) a finding from source [X] that contradicts a finding from source [Y], explained plainly, (4) what question the combined sources still do not answer. Sources: [paste here]

Read this research paper and identify its weaknesses. I need: (1) the central claim, (2) the methodology used to support it, (3) three specific methodological limitations that a peer reviewer would flag, (4) whether the conclusion is proportionate to what the data actually shows, (5) one alternative explanation for the findings that the authors do not address. Write this as a structured critique, not a summary. Paper: [paste here]

Write a strategic memo recommending [action or decision] to [audience]. Format: (1) the recommendation in one sentence, (2) the three key reasons ranked by importance with supporting evidence, (3) what happens if we do not act, (4) the main risk of acting and how to mitigate it, (5) the specific next step with an owner and deadline. Keep it under 400 words. Write for a reader who is skeptical of this recommendation and will look for reasons to reject it.

Write a board update on [topic or project] for a quarterly board meeting. Requirements: (1) open with the headline metric and whether it is on track, (2) three bullets on what is working and why, (3) two bullets on risks and the mitigation plan for each, (4) one decision you need from the board with context and a recommended option, (5) close with a 30 day outlook. Tone: confident and in command, not defensive. Under 300 words.

Help me think through this decision: [describe the decision]. Give me: (1) the two or three real options with their honest tradeoffs, (2) what assumptions I am making that could be wrong, (3) the reversibility of each option, (4) what I would need to believe to choose each option, (5) the one question I should answer before deciding. Do not tell me which option to pick. Help me think more clearly about the choice.

I need to [describe goal] by [date]. Help me build a working plan. I need: (1) the three to five phases in order with what defines completion for each, (2) within each phase, the specific tasks that are blocking versus parallel, (3) the dependencies that could cause delays, (4) the one assumption in my plan that is most likely to be wrong, (5) what to do in the first 48 hours to build momentum. Be concrete. Do not give me a generic project management framework.

Write a stakeholder update email about [project or situation]. Context: [describe what is happening, including any problems or delays]. Requirements: acknowledge the current state honestly without over-explaining, explain what changed and why, state the revised timeline or outcome with confidence, give one specific thing stakeholders can do to help if applicable, and close with a clear next update date. Do not use passive voice to avoid accountability. Do not say "challenges were encountered."