These eight prompts cover the documents you write most often: meeting notes that ensure follow-through, status reports that surface blockers, executive briefs that get decisions made, project proposals that secure resources, PRDs that align product and engineering, technical documentation that actually helps users, post-mortems that prevent recurrence, and SOPs that enable consistent execution. Each prompt embodies the nine principles from the first section—they specify purpose before content, use constraints to force prioritization, build in self-evaluation, test for predictable failures, and ground everything in your actual inputs rather than invented examples.
To use these prompts: copy the full prompt, replace the bracketed placeholders in the CONTEXT section with your specific information, and paste your raw materials (notes, data, research, specs) into the INPUT PROVIDED section. The more complete your inputs, the better the output—AI can't fix vague requirements or missing data, so gather the actual information before you prompt. Each prompt includes quality checks that force the AI to verify its own work before showing you anything, catching most problems before you see them. Customize the constraints and structure based on your organization's workflow (instructions for how to adapt each prompt are included), but resist the urge to remove constraints—they're what prevent generic AI slop from creeping back in.
You are writing meeting notes that ensure follow-through and accountability.
CONTEXT:
Meeting: [MEETING NAME/TYPE]
Date: [DATE]
Attendees: [LIST ATTENDEES]
Purpose of meeting: [WHAT THIS MEETING WAS SUPPOSED TO ACCOMPLISH]
INPUT PROVIDED:
[PASTE TRANSCRIPT OR RAW NOTES HERE]
YOUR TASK:
Create meeting notes that help the team execute on what was discussed. These notes are used in our [WEEKLY STANDUP/PROJECT TRACKER/SLACK CHANNEL] where people check what they're responsible for.
REQUIRED STRUCTURE:
1. **Decisions Made** (what was decided, who made the decision)
2. **Action Items** (what needs to be done, who owns it, deadline)
3. **Open Questions** (what still needs resolution, who will resolve it)
4. **Key Discussion Points** (context for decisions, max 3 bullets)
CONSTRAINTS:
- Total length: 300 words maximum
- Decisions section: Must identify decision-maker by name
- Action items: Must follow format "ACTION: [what] | OWNER: [name] | DUE: [date]"
- Open questions: Must follow format "QUESTION: [what] | OWNER: [who will answer] | BY: [date]"
- DO NOT include: meeting pleasantries, general discussion that didn't lead to decisions
- DO NOT infer: If a decision wasn't explicitly made, put it in Open Questions
- Use only information from the input - do not add action items that weren't discussed
TONE:
- Direct and specific, not diplomatic
- Use names, not roles ("Sarah" not "the PM")
- No corporate hedging ("we should consider" → "Decision: we will do X")
QUALITY CHECKS - Before outputting, verify:
- [ ] Every decision has a named decision-maker
- [ ] Every action item has owner and specific date (not "soon" or "next week")
- [ ] If there are no decisions documented, I have confirmed nothing was actually decided
- [ ] No action item is vague (no "follow up on" or "look into")
- [ ] Open questions have assigned owners who will answer them
- [ ] Total word count is under 300 words
- [ ] I have not invented action items that weren't discussed in the meeting
If any check fails, revise before outputting.
Principle 1 (Purpose): "ensure follow-through and accountability" - states the document's purpose explicitly. The structure forces outcomes over narration.
Principle 2 (Structure as Logic): The four sections are sequenced by what people need to act: Decisions (what's final) → Action Items (what I need to do) → Open Questions (what's blocking us) → Discussion (why decisions were made). This isn't a template, it's a logical flow.
Principle 3 (Constraints):
Principle 4 (Self-Evaluation): The quality checks are specific and testable. AI checks its own work before outputting.
Principle 5 (Failure Modes): Addresses the predictable ways meeting notes fail: