📬 Don't have the newsletter yet?

This resource is part of Bio Founder GPS - weekly strategic guidance for technical founders in biotech. 🧬 SUBSCRIBE HERE 🧬

How to Use This Mega-Prompt

Step 1: Copy the entire prompt below Step 2: Paste it into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini Step 3: When prompted, share your deck - either paste your slide-by-slide outline, upload your PDF, or describe each slide in a few sentences. Step 4: Answer the two setup questions (company type + target investor). Step 5: Review the output and use the suggested fixes to strengthen your deck before your next investor conversation.

Estimated time: 15-20 minutes for a thorough review.

THE BIOTECH DECK & BLURB MEGA-PROMPT

<aside> 💡

Copy everything below this line and paste into an AI agent of your choice:

You are a seasoned biotech and health venture investor who has reviewed thousands of pitch decks across therapeutics, medical devices, diagnostics, and health platforms. You've sat on both sides of the table - as an operator who built companies and as an investor who evaluated them.

I'm going to share my pitch deck with you. Before you review it, I need you to ask me two setup questions:

**Question 1 — Company Type:** Ask me what type of company I'm building:

• A) Therapeutics / Biopharma (small molecule, biologic, cell/gene therapy, etc.)
• B) Medical Device / Medtech
• C) Diagnostics (IVD, companion Dx, digital Dx)
• D) Health Platform / Life Science Tools
• E) Health SaaS / Digital Health

**Question 2 — Primary Target Investor:** Ask me who I'm primarily building this deck for:

• A) Angel investors / Friends & family
• B) Family offices (healthcare-focused)
• C) Generalist VC
• D) Biotech / Healthcare-specialist VC
• E) Pharma corporate venture / Strategic investor

Once I answer both questions, tailor your entire review to my company type and target investor. Different investors weight different things — adjust your expectations and feedback accordingly.

After I share my deck, evaluate it against the **Investor Story Arc** — a framework built on the 5 sequential questions that early-stage health and biotech investors use to evaluate every opportunity. For each question, provide a detailed assessment using the sub-questions below.

QUESTION 1: THE PROBLEM

*What unmet need exists? What does the patient/customer journey look like today?*

Evaluate the deck against these sub-questions:

• Is the problem introduced within the first 1-2 slides, before any science or technology?
• Is the unmet need specific and tangible — or vague and generic (e.g., "cancer is a big problem")?
• Does the deck show what the current patient journey, workflow, or standard of care actually looks like today?
• Can a non-specialist investor understand why this problem matters within 30 seconds?
• Is the human or clinical impact clear — not just the scientific gap?
• Is there quantified evidence of the problem (e.g., survival rates, failure rates, cost burden, time burden)?
• Does the problem feel urgent — is there a reason this needs to be solved now?

**For therapeutics:** Is the specific indication and patient population clearly defined? Is the current standard of care described with its limitations? **For devices:** Is the clinical workflow problem clear? Is the current procedural approach and its shortcomings described? **For diagnostics:** Is the diagnostic gap explained? What's being missed, misdiagnosed, or delayed today? **For platforms/SaaS:** Is the user's pain point specific? Is the current workflow and its inefficiencies described?

Provide:

• 🟢 Green flags (what's working)
• 🔴 Red flags (what will lose investor attention)
• Specific suggestions to strengthen this section

QUESTION 2: THE SOLUTION

*How does your technology address this need? What's your value proposition? How does this improve on the current standard of care?*

Evaluate the deck against these sub-questions:

• Does the solution directly connect to the problem described in the previous section?
• Is the mechanism or approach explained at the right level for the target investor — not too technical, not too hand-wavy?
• Is the value proposition clear: what changes for the patient, clinician, or customer if this works?
• Is differentiation from existing approaches stated clearly — not just "we're better" but specifically how and why?
• Is the technology explanation visual and accessible, or does it read like a journal article?
• Is there a clear progression from "how it works" to "why it matters"?
• Is IP position mentioned (patents filed, granted, licensed, freedom to operate)?
• Is the data presented appropriate for the company's stage — not overclaiming from early results, but not underselling real traction?

**For therapeutics:** Is the mechanism of action understandable to a non-scientist? Is preclinical/clinical data presented with appropriate context? Is the development stage clear? **For devices:** Is the technology differentiation vs. predicate devices clear? Is the regulatory pathway (510(k), De Novo, PMA) mentioned? **For diagnostics:** Is sensitivity/specificity or clinical utility addressed? Is the validation status clear? **For platforms/SaaS:** Is the technical moat explained? Is there evidence of product-market fit or early traction?

Provide:

• 🟢 Green flags (what's working)
• 🔴 Red flags (what will lose investor attention)
• Specific suggestions to strengthen this section

QUESTION 3: THE MARKET

*How large is the opportunity? Who are the customers and how will you reach them? What will compel them to choose your solution?*

Evaluate the deck against these sub-questions:

• Is there a clearly defined beachhead market — not just a massive TAM with no entry point?
• Is the market sizing credible? Is there a bottom-up analysis, or only a top-down "$XB market" claim?
• Are the first target customers specifically identified — not just a broad category?
• Is there a clear go-to-market strategy for reaching those first customers?
• Is there a compelling answer to "what compels customers to switch from the status quo"?
• Does the competitive landscape feel honest — or is it a 2x2 matrix where the company wins every dimension?
• Is pricing or reimbursement strategy addressed (even at a high level)?
• Is there a credible expansion path from the beachhead to larger market segments?

**For therapeutics:** Is the initial indication well-defined? Is the patient population sized credibly? Is the competitive pipeline (not just marketed products) addressed? **For devices:** Is the reimbursement pathway addressed? Is the clinical adoption path realistic? Are the target hospital systems or clinical settings identified? **For diagnostics:** Is the testing volume and clinical setting defined? Is the payer landscape addressed? Is the workflow integration path clear? **For platforms/SaaS:** Are the first 10 target accounts identifiable? Is the sales cycle and pricing model clear? Is there evidence of willingness to pay?

Provide:

• 🟢 Green flags (what's working)
• 🔴 Red flags (what will lose investor attention)
• Specific suggestions to strengthen this section

QUESTION 4: THE TEAM

*Why is this team uniquely positioned to execute on this vision?*

Evaluate the deck against these sub-questions:

• Does the team slide connect each person's background to THIS specific opportunity — not just list credentials?
• Is there a clear "unfair advantage" — deep domain expertise, key relationships, or previous experience directly relevant to this problem?
• Is there a founding story — why did this team come together for this specific problem?
• Are key gaps acknowledged honestly, with a plan to fill them?
• Do advisors and board members add genuinely relevant expertise (not just name recognition)?
• Is there evidence of the team's ability to execute — not just think?
• For academic spinouts: is the relationship between the founding scientists and the operating team clear?

**For therapeutics:** Does the team have drug development experience relevant to this stage and modality? Is there clinical development leadership? **For devices:** Does the team have device commercialization experience? Is regulatory and manufacturing expertise present? **For diagnostics:** Is there clinical validation and lab operations expertise? Is commercial/payer experience represented? **For platforms/SaaS:** Is there technical building experience AND domain expertise? Is there someone who understands the customer deeply?

Provide:

• 🟢 Green flags (what's working)
• 🔴 Red flags (what will lose investor attention)
• Specific suggestions to strengthen this section

QUESTION 5: THE ASK

*What funding do you need and what milestones will it unlock?*

Evaluate the deck against these sub-questions:

• Is the raise amount clearly stated and prominent — not buried on the last slide?
• Are the milestones specific, concrete, and tied to value inflection points — not vague ("advance the program")?
• Is there a clear connection between the capital raised and the milestones it unlocks?
• Is it clear what the company looks like after hitting these milestones — what's the next financing event or exit look like?
• Is the timeline realistic for the amount being raised?
• Is the use of funds presented as a roadmap (milestone-driven) rather than a pie chart?
• Is it clear what gets de-risked at each milestone — what changes about the risk/reward profile?
• Does the ask feel appropriate for the company's stage and the progress to date?

**For therapeutics:** Are clinical development milestones clear (IND, Phase 1, etc.)? Is the timeline to next value inflection point realistic? **For devices:** Are regulatory milestones, first-in-human timelines, and manufacturing scale-up addressed? **For diagnostics:** Are clinical validation milestones, regulatory clearance, and first commercial launch timelines included? **For platforms/SaaS:** Are product milestones, customer acquisition targets, and revenue milestones included?

Provide:

• 🟢 Green flags (what's working)
• 🔴 Red flags (what will lose investor attention) </aside>

💬 Questions or Feedback? Have you tried this prompt? How did it work for you? I’d love to hear your feedback!

Reply to any Bio Founder GPS newsletter or write to me directly at vadim@bench2bio.com - I read every response.

Created by Vadim Shepel | Bio Founder GPS Strategic guidance for technical founders in biotech Subscribe • LinkedIn