Claude Opus 5.5 Prompt Generator

Perform a deep architecture audit of this codebase. Review for: 1. STRUCTURAL ISSUES — tight coupling, circular dependencies, god objects, missing abstraction layers 2. SECURITY — injection risks, authentication gaps, secret exposure patterns, insecure defaults 3. SCALABILITY — bottlenecks that will break under 10× current load 4. MAINTAINABILITY — naming inconsistencies, undocumented invariants, dead code 5. DEBT RANKING — list every issue in priority order: what to fix first, what to schedule, what to live with For each issue: the file/function involved, a one-paragraph explanation of why it matters, and the minimum code change to resolve it. [Paste your codebase or key files]

Review this contract as an expert attorney with a focus on protecting the party named as [Client / Counterparty]. Contract type: [SaaS agreement / employment / NDA / partnership / other] Our role: [which party are you representing?] Identify: 1. UNACCEPTABLE CLAUSES — clauses that create material legal or business risk (rate each: critical / high / medium) 2. MISSING PROTECTIONS — standard clauses that are absent and why their absence matters 3. AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE — phrases that a court could interpret against our favour 4. NEGOTIATION LEVERAGE POINTS — the 5 clauses most likely to be negotiated and our fallback positions 5. RED-LINE SUMMARY — a plain-English paragraph describing the overall risk profile Present findings as a structured memo a non-lawyer senior executive can act on. [Paste your contract text]

I am attaching a [200-page report / large academic paper / full book / regulatory document]. Synthesise it into a structured briefing for a senior decision-maker with no time to read the full document. Audience: [who will read this — CEO, regulator, investor, researcher, etc.] Decision it informs: [what decision does this research support?] Deliver: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — 3 paragraphs: the core argument, key evidence, and practical implication 2. TOP 10 FINDINGS — bulleted, ordered by relevance to the decision 3. METHODOLOGY CRITIQUE — 3 limitations of the research the reader should know before acting on it 4. COMPETING VIEWS — are there credible counter-arguments this document underweights? 5. ACTION BRIEF — the single most important thing to do with this information, and by when Do not omit any finding that directly contradicts the report's main conclusion. [Paste your document]

Plan and execute a refactor of the following multi-file module. The goal is [describe goal: e.g. 'migrate from class-based to functional React components', 'extract a shared utility layer', 'replace a REST API client with a GraphQL client']. Constraints: - Zero breaking changes to the public API - All existing tests must still pass - Incremental — the codebase should be deployable at each step Deliver: 1. A step-by-step migration plan with each step as a standalone PR (safe to merge independently) 2. The exact code changes for Step 1, ready to commit 3. The test I should write to confirm Step 1 is safe before Step 2 4. The 3 places most likely to cause a regression and why Files to refactor: [Paste your files]

Act as an adversarial red-team analyst. Your goal is to identify every realistic way the following system could be exploited, broken, manipulated, or abused — including ways the designers did not anticipate. System description: [describe your system — its purpose, users, data it handles, trust boundaries] Attacker profile: [who are the most plausible adversaries — script kiddies, insiders, nation-state actors, financially motivated attackers?] Report structure: 1. ATTACK SURFACE MAP — every entry point and trust boundary, with a risk score (1–10) 2. TOP 5 ATTACK SCENARIOS — each with: attack vector, pre-conditions, impact, and detection difficulty 3. CASCADING FAILURE ANALYSIS — how one breach enables the next 4. BLIND SPOTS — threats the current design philosophy is most likely to underestimate 5. PRIORITY HARDENING ACTIONS — the 3 changes that eliminate the most risk for the least cost Be specific and concrete. Do not recommend generic 'use encryption' advice.

Conduct a systematic literature review of the following research question. Treat the provided papers as the complete corpus. Research question: [your question] Discipline: [field] Audience: [who will read this review — academics submitting a paper / practitioners making decisions / policymakers?] Deliver a structured review: 1. SEARCH STRATEGY — how this corpus addresses the question (or doesn't) 2. THEMES — 4–6 major themes across the literature, with supporting citations and a brief synthesis of each 3. CONSENSUS — what the field broadly agrees on, with confidence level (strong / moderate / weak) 4. DISAGREEMENTS — the 3 most significant debates, with the strongest arguments on each side 5. GAPS — where the literature is silent or methodologically weak 6. FUTURE DIRECTIONS — the 2 most important unanswered questions 7. FORMATTED REFERENCES — in [APA / MLA / Chicago / Vancouver] format [Paste your papers or abstracts]

Write a complete strategic business plan for the following venture: Venture: [one sentence description] Stage: [pre-revenue / seed / Series A / established] Target market: [describe] Primary revenue model: [how will this make money?] Plan structure: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — 3 paragraphs: the opportunity, the solution, the ask 2. MARKET ANALYSIS — TAM/SAM/SOM with reasoning, top 3 competitors and their weaknesses 3. PRODUCT/SERVICE — what it is, what makes it defensible, the roadmap for the first 18 months 4. GO-TO-MARKET — the specific channel strategy for the first 500 customers, not a generic funnel 5. FINANCIAL MODEL — a 3-year P&L projection with explicit assumptions listed (not hidden in formulas) 6. TEAM — what roles the founding team must cover in year 1 and what the first 3 hires should be 7. RISK REGISTER — top 5 risks ranked by probability × impact, each with a mitigation strategy 8. THE ASK — what you need (capital, partnerships, talent) and what milestones it unlocks Write for a sophisticated investor who has seen 500 pitch decks.

Use your maximum reasoning depth to diagnose this production bug. Walk through every hypothesis systematically — do not skip steps. Symptom: [describe what breaks, when it breaks, and under what conditions] Error logs: ``` [Paste logs] ``` Relevant code: ``` [Paste code] ``` Environment: [OS, runtime, framework versions] What we have already ruled out: [list attempts] When it started: [date / deploy] Frequency: [always / intermittent / under load / specific input] Deliver: 1. HYPOTHESIS RANKING — all plausible causes, ordered by probability, each with the evidence for and against 2. THE FIX — exact code changes for the most likely cause 3. VERIFICATION PLAN — how to confirm the fix worked before calling it done 4. REGRESSION GUARD — a test that will catch this class of bug in future 5. POST-MORTEM NOTE — one paragraph suitable for a team incident retrospective

Write a 3,000-word investigative-style article on the following topic. This is not a summary — it requires synthesis, analysis, and an editorial point of view. Topic: [your topic] Publisher/audience: [who will read this and what do they already know?] Central argument (your thesis): [what single claim should the reader believe after reading this?] The most uncomfortable implication: [what does the evidence suggest that most people don't want to accept?] Structure: - Opening scene or specific example that makes the abstract concrete (300 words) - Context and background — why this matters now (400 words) - The evidence — 4 sections of 400 words each, each advancing the argument with a specific example or data point - The counterargument — the strongest challenge to your thesis, taken seriously (300 words) - Conclusion — what this means for the reader and what they should do (200 words) Every claim must be supported by a specific piece of evidence. No vague assertions.

Write a policy memo on the following issue for a senior government official (Secretary-level or equivalent). The official has 10 minutes to read it before a briefing. Issue: [describe the policy challenge] Relevant jurisdiction: [country/region] Decision required: [what decision does this official need to make?] Deadline: [when is the decision needed?] Key stakeholders affected: [list the main affected parties] Memo structure (follow exactly): 1. PURPOSE — one sentence 2. SITUATION — 2 paragraphs: current state, what has changed recently 3. OPTIONS — 3 options (including a 'do nothing' option), each with pros, cons, and one risk the reader may not have considered 4. RECOMMENDATION — one clear recommendation with 3 supporting reasons 5. IMPLEMENTATION NOTES — the 2 most important execution risks 6. NEXT STEPS — 3 specific actions with owners and dates Tone: neutral, precise, no jargon, no passive voice.

Write a comprehensive competitive intelligence brief on [competitor company name] for our leadership team. Our company: [one sentence on what you do] Competitor: [name and what they do] Context: [why are we analysing them now — new product, funding round, market entry, pricing change?] Brief sections: 1. OVERVIEW — who they are, their stage, their stated mission (2 paragraphs) 2. PRODUCT COMPARISON — feature-by-feature table: their strengths, their weaknesses, where they beat us, where we beat them 3. CUSTOMER PROFILE — who buys from them and why (use any publicly available signals: reviews, job postings, customer logos, case studies) 4. BUSINESS MODEL — how they make money, their pricing structure, and estimated revenue if public or estimable 5. STRATEGIC INTENT — where are they going in the next 12–18 months? What signals indicate this? 6. VULNERABILITIES — the 3 things they are doing wrong that we can exploit 7. THREAT ASSESSMENT — rate the threat level (Low / Medium / High / Critical) with a one-paragraph rationale Base only on publicly available information.

Summarise the following clinical research for a well-informed patient (or their family member) who has a science background but is not a clinician. Context: [describe who is asking and why — e.g. 'evaluating a treatment option for a family member with X condition'] Research to summarise: [paste abstract, study, or relevant sections] Deliver: 1. PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY — what this study found, in 3 sentences, without medical jargon 2. STUDY QUALITY — was this a randomised trial, observational study, meta-analysis, or case series? What are the key limitations? 3. EFFECT SIZE — how large was the benefit (or harm)? Put it in absolute terms (e.g. '5 people out of 100' not '30% relative reduction') 4. WHO DOES IT APPLY TO — are there patient characteristics that make this finding more or less relevant? 5. WHAT IT DOESN'T ANSWER — the most important question this study cannot resolve 6. QUESTIONS TO ASK YOUR DOCTOR — 3 specific questions based on this research Note: this is for information, not medical advice.

Create a comprehensive due diligence checklist and findings template for the following transaction: Transaction type: [acquisition / investment / partnership / vendor selection / hiring a key executive] Target: [describe the entity being evaluated] Deal size / scope: [approximate] Key risks we already know about: [list any known concerns] Timeline: [how long do we have?] Team doing the diligence: [who is involved — legal, finance, technical, operations?] Deliver: 1. A prioritised checklist organised by workstream (legal, financial, technical, operational, market, people) 2. For each item: what document or data point to request, what red flag to watch for, and who on the team owns it 3. A 'must-have before proceeding' list — the 5 items that are dealbreakers if unsatisfactory 4. A findings template (blank table the team fills in: item, finding, risk rating, recommendation) 5. A final recommendation framework — what score / threshold triggers a 'proceed', 'proceed with conditions', or 'walk away'

Construct the strongest possible argument for and against the following philosophical position. Do not take a side — your goal is to maximally strengthen both positions. Position: [state the claim, e.g. 'Consciousness cannot be explained by physical processes alone'] Context: [academic essay / debate preparation / personal exploration / teaching material] Length: [250 words per side / 500 words per side / as long as needed] For each side: 1. THE CORE CLAIM — restated with full precision, no straw-manning 2. THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT — the best philosophical or empirical case for this position 3. THE KEY PREMISES — the 3 claims this argument requires to be true 4. THE MOST POWERFUL OBJECTION — the single hardest challenge this view faces 5. A REPLY TO THAT OBJECTION — how a sophisticated proponent would respond End with: the crux — the single factual or logical question that, if resolved, would settle the debate.

Draft an M&A integration plan for the following acquisition. Focus on the 100 days immediately post-close. Acquirer: [describe — industry, size, culture] Target: [describe — industry, size, culture, what was acquired: talent, product, market, IP?] Strategic rationale: [why was this acquisition made — synergies, market entry, acqui-hire, consolidation?] Known friction points: [what differences in culture, system, or process are already apparent?] Plan: 1. DAY 1 PRIORITIES — the 10 things that must happen on close day to prevent disruption 2. FIRST 30 DAYS — stabilise: communications plan, retention risk assessment, process freeze (what not to change yet) 3. DAYS 31–60 — integrate: the 3 highest-priority systems/processes to merge, and how 4. DAYS 61–100 — optimise: the first synergy to realise and how to measure it 5. RISK REGISTER — top 5 integration risks (talent flight, culture clash, customer disruption, technical debt, regulatory) with mitigation 6. SUCCESS METRICS — the 5 KPIs that will tell us if integration is on track at day 100

Audit the following product/process for compliance with [GDPR / HIPAA / SOC 2 / CCPA / PCI-DSS / applicable regulation]. Product/process description: [describe what your system does, the data it handles, and who has access] Regulation(s) to audit against: [name the specific regulation(s)] Current controls in place: [describe any existing compliance measures] Audit audience: [internal team / external auditor / legal counsel / board] Audit report structure: 1. SCOPE — what is and is not covered by this audit 2. REQUIREMENTS MAP — a table of every relevant regulatory requirement, with a pass/fail/partial status for each 3. GAPS — every non-compliant item, ranked by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low) 4. REMEDIATION PLAN — for each gap: the specific technical or process change needed, estimated effort (days), and a suggested owner 5. TIMELINE — a 90-day remediation roadmap prioritising Critical and High items 6. RESIDUAL RISK — risks that cannot be eliminated and must be accepted or insured against

Write a 2,500-word chapter of literary fiction with the following parameters: Genre/tone: [literary fiction / psychological thriller / historical / speculative — pick one and describe the tone] Setting: [time period, location, atmosphere] Point of view character: [name, age, key personality traits, what they want and what they fear] Chapter goal: [what must this chapter accomplish in the story — introduce a character, escalate conflict, reveal backstory?] Opening image or line: [give me a specific image or first sentence to build from, or leave blank] Technical requirements: - Show internal monologue and external action in alternating rhythm - At least one piece of dialogue that reveals character without stating it - A setting detail that carries thematic weight (not decoration) - The emotional state must shift at least twice — the chapter cannot end where it begins emotionally - No adverbs modifying dialogue tags (said quietly, whispered softly, etc.) After the chapter: a 2-sentence note on the craft decisions made and why.

Critically review the following econometric model or statistical analysis. Identify every methodological weakness that could invalidate the conclusions. Paper/model: [paste the relevant sections — methodology, results, conclusions] Claim being tested: [what causal or correlational claim is the paper making?] Audience for this review: [peer reviewer / policy team / investment committee / media fact-checker] Review structure: 1. MODEL SPECIFICATION — is the dependent variable correctly defined? Are the independent variables the right ones? Are important controls omitted? 2. IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY — how does the model claim to establish causation (or correlation)? Is this credible? 3. DATA QUALITY — selection bias, measurement error, survivorship bias, data vintage issues 4. STATISTICAL ISSUES — heteroskedasticity, multicollinearity, serial correlation, p-hacking, multiple comparisons 5. EXTERNAL VALIDITY — can the findings be generalised? To which populations, contexts, or time periods? 6. CONCLUSION OVERSHOOT — does the paper's conclusion claim more than the data can support? 7. VERDICT — on a scale of 'credible and actionable' to 'methodologically invalid', where does this land and why?

Execute the following multi-step agentic task. At each step: state what you are doing, what information you need, what assumption you are making, and what the output is before moving to the next step. Task: [describe the full goal in detail — e.g. 'Research three SaaS competitors, summarise their pricing and positioning, identify our top 3 differentiators, and draft a competitive one-pager for the sales team'] Available context and data: [Paste any relevant documents, data, or background] Deliverable format: [what does the final output look like — a document, a table, a structured JSON, a slide outline?] After completing all steps: 1. Final output in the requested format 2. A list of every assumption you made (so a human can validate them) 3. The 2 steps where you had the least confidence in your output, and why

Analyse the following ethical dilemma using multiple ethical frameworks. Do not collapse to a single answer — the goal is rigorous multi-perspective analysis. Dilemma: [describe the situation and the decision to be made] Stakeholders: [who is affected and how?] Constraints: [any facts that constrain the options — legal, physical, financial] Context: [why does this matter — academic exercise / real decision / policy formation?] Analyse through each lens: 1. CONSEQUENTIALISM — what does maximising aggregate welfare recommend? What are the second-order effects? 2. DEONTOLOGY — what do duty-based ethics require, regardless of outcome? Are there rights being violated? 3. VIRTUE ETHICS — what would a person of good character do? What does this decision say about the decision-maker? 4. CONTRACTUALISM — what principles could be justified to all affected parties? 5. CARE ETHICS — how does this affect relationships and dependencies between people? Synthesis: - Where do the frameworks agree? - Where do they conflict, and why? - The crux — what is the hardest thing to resolve, and what information would resolve it?