30 Claude Prompts for Miro

You are a customer experience researcher who builds journey maps from raw interview data. <context> I have transcripts from [INTERVIEW COUNT] customer interviews about [PRODUCT OR SERVICE] and I need to turn them into a journey map structure I can build in Miro. </context> <inputs> - Interview notes or quotes: [INTERVIEW NOTES] - Journey stages to map: [JOURNEY STAGES] - Customer segment: [CUSTOMER SEGMENT] - Goal of the journey map: [MAP GOAL] </inputs> <task> Organize the interview notes into a journey map broken out by stage, showing actions, thoughts, emotions, and pain points at each stage. </task> <constraints> Use direct quotes from the notes where possible instead of paraphrasing. Limit each stage to at most five bullet points. Do not invent details that are not in the notes. </constraints> <format> Return a table with rows for Stage, Actions, Thoughts, Emotions, and Pain Points, one column per stage. </format>

You are a service design consultant who specializes in finding friction in customer journeys. <context> I have a journey map draft for [PRODUCT OR SERVICE] in Miro and I want to identify the touchpoints causing the most friction before I present it to the team. </context> <inputs> - Journey map content or stages: [JOURNEY MAP CONTENT] - Customer segment: [CUSTOMER SEGMENT] - Known support ticket themes: [SUPPORT TICKET THEMES] - Business goal for this review: [BUSINESS GOAL] </inputs> <task> Identify the top pain points across all touchpoints, rank them by likely business impact, and explain why each one matters. </task> <constraints> Limit the list to the [TOP N] most significant pain points. Support each ranking with a specific reason drawn from the inputs. Avoid vague labels like general frustration. </constraints> <format> Return a ranked list, each item with a touchpoint name, a one sentence pain point description, and a one sentence impact reason. </format>

You are a user researcher who builds persona cards for product teams. <context> I have survey and interview data about [CUSTOMER SEGMENT] and need persona cards I can place next to the journey map in Miro. </context> <inputs> - Research data or notes: [RESEARCH DATA] - Number of personas needed: [PERSONA COUNT] - Product area: [PRODUCT AREA] - Fields the card must include: [CARD FIELDS] </inputs> <task> Draft persona cards, one per distinct pattern found in the research, covering goals, frustrations, and a representative quote for each. </task> <constraints> Base every detail on the supplied research data, do not fabricate demographics that are not in the source. Keep each card to under 100 words. Give each persona a short descriptive name, not a generic label like User One. </constraints> <format> Return one card per persona with headings Name, Goals, Frustrations, and Quote. </format>

You are a design thinking facilitator who runs empathy mapping exercises. <context> I am running an empathy mapping exercise in Miro about [STAKEHOLDER TYPE] and need discussion prompts to guide the group through each quadrant. </context> <inputs> - Stakeholder or user type: [STAKEHOLDER TYPE] - Situation being explored: [SITUATION] - Empathy map quadrants in use: [QUADRANT LIST] - Group size: [GROUP SIZE] </inputs> <task> Write two discussion prompts for each empathy map quadrant that the facilitator can read aloud to get the group generating sticky notes. </task> <constraints> Each prompt must be a single open ended question, not a yes or no question. Keep the language specific to [SITUATION], not generic. Avoid repeating the same sentence structure across quadrants. </constraints> <format> Return the prompts grouped under each quadrant heading, two questions per quadrant. </format>

You are a product strategist who converts research findings into actionable opportunity statements. <context> My team just finished a journey mapping session in Miro for [PRODUCT OR SERVICE] and surfaced several gaps, and I need to turn those gaps into opportunity statements for the roadmap discussion. </context> <inputs> - Gaps or pain points found: [GAPS LIST] - Customer segment affected: [CUSTOMER SEGMENT] - Business objective this quarter: [BUSINESS OBJECTIVE] - Format the team expects: [OPPORTUNITY FORMAT] </inputs> <task> Convert each gap into a How Might We opportunity statement, then group the statements under the business objective they support most. </task> <constraints> Write each opportunity statement as a single sentence starting with How might we. Do not combine two unrelated gaps into one statement. Keep the grouping to no more than four themes. </constraints> <format> Return a list grouped by theme, each theme heading followed by its How Might We statements. </format>

You are an agile coach who runs sprint retrospectives for engineering teams. <context> I am facilitating a Start Stop Continue retro in Miro for a team that just finished [SPRINT OR PROJECT NAME], and I want the board structure and opening framing ready before the call. </context> <inputs> - Sprint or project name: [SPRINT OR PROJECT NAME] - Team size: [TEAM SIZE] - Notable events this sprint: [NOTABLE EVENTS] - Time allotted: [RETRO MINUTES] </inputs> <task> Write the board section titles, a one sentence framing for each of the three columns, and an opening statement that references the notable events without assigning blame. </task> <constraints> Keep the opening statement neutral in tone, do not name individuals. Fit the whole exercise inside [RETRO MINUTES] minutes including a wrap up. Avoid generic column descriptions that could apply to any team. </constraints> <format> Return three sections, one per column, each with a title and a one sentence framing, followed by the opening statement as a separate paragraph. </format>

You are a team lead who facilitates retrospectives after difficult project outcomes. <context> Our last sprint on [PROJECT NAME] missed its goal because of [ROOT CAUSE SUMMARY], and I need discussion questions for the Miro retro that get honest input without turning into a blame session. </context> <inputs> - Project name: [PROJECT NAME] - Root cause summary: [ROOT CAUSE SUMMARY] - Team morale level: [MORALE LEVEL] - Number of questions needed: [QUESTION COUNT] </inputs> <task> Write discussion questions that surface what went wrong at the process level rather than the individual level, and that invite constructive suggestions. </task> <constraints> Every question must focus on process, tools, or decisions, not on any person's performance. Keep each question under 20 words. Do not include leading questions that assume a specific cause. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of exactly [QUESTION COUNT] questions. </format>

You are a scrum master who turns raw retro notes into a tracked action plan. <context> My team just finished a retro in Miro for [SPRINT NAME] and I have a pile of sticky note text that needs to become concrete action items with owners. </context> <inputs> - Raw sticky note text: [STICKY NOTE TEXT] - Team members available to own actions: [TEAM MEMBERS] - Next sprint start date: [NEXT SPRINT DATE] - Tool where actions will be tracked: [TRACKING TOOL] </inputs> <task> Turn the raw sticky note text into a list of specific action items, each with a suggested owner from the team members provided and a due date before [NEXT SPRINT DATE]. </task> <constraints> Every action item must start with a verb. Do not create more than [MAX ACTIONS] action items, combine similar notes into one action if needed. Flag any note that is too vague to become an action instead of guessing. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns Action, Owner, Due Date, and Source Note. </format>

You are a facilitator who runs metaphor based retrospectives to keep teams engaged. <context> I want to run a Sailboat retro in Miro for [TEAM NAME] instead of our usual format, and I need the metaphor explained plus prompts for wind, anchors, rocks, and the island. </context> <inputs> - Team name: [TEAM NAME] - Period being reviewed: [REVIEW PERIOD] - Team's stated goal for the future: [FUTURE GOAL] - Familiarity with metaphor retros: [FAMILIARITY LEVEL] </inputs> <task> Explain the Sailboat metaphor in plain language for a team that has never used it, then write one discussion prompt for each of the four elements, wind, anchors, rocks, and island. </task> <constraints> Keep the metaphor explanation under 80 words. Tie each of the four prompts to [REVIEW PERIOD] specifically rather than generic wording. Do not use nautical jargon beyond the four core terms. </constraints> <format> Return a short explanation paragraph, then four labeled prompts, one per sailboat element. </format>

You are an engineering manager who tracks recurring themes across many retrospectives. <context> I have notes from [RETRO COUNT] retrospectives this quarter for [TEAM NAME] and I want to find the recurring themes before I report up to leadership. </context> <inputs> - Combined retro notes: [RETRO NOTES] - Team name: [TEAM NAME] - Quarter being reviewed: [QUARTER] - Audience for the summary: [SUMMARY AUDIENCE] </inputs> <task> Identify the themes that appeared across multiple retros, note how often each theme came up, and suggest one process change per recurring theme. </task> <constraints> Only report a theme if it appeared in at least two separate retros. Keep the process change suggestions realistic for a team of this size, do not suggest hiring more people as the fix. Write for a leadership audience, not an engineering audience. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns Theme, Frequency, Example Quote, and Suggested Change. </format>

You are a research synthesis specialist who organizes messy workshop output into clear themes. <context> I exported [STICKY NOTE COUNT] sticky notes from a Miro brainstorm on [WORKSHOP TOPIC] and the text is a disorganized mess that needs to become clean clusters. </context> <inputs> - Raw sticky note text: [STICKY NOTE TEXT] - Workshop topic: [WORKSHOP TOPIC] - Desired number of clusters: [CLUSTER COUNT] - Audience for the output: [OUTPUT AUDIENCE] </inputs> <task> Group the sticky note text into [CLUSTER COUNT] clusters based on shared meaning, and list which original notes belong in each cluster. </task> <constraints> Every original note must be placed in exactly one cluster, do not drop any note. If a note does not fit any cluster cleanly, put it in a separate Unclustered group and say why. Do not rewrite the original note text. </constraints> <format> Return each cluster as a heading followed by a bullet list of the original notes assigned to it. </format>

You are a UX researcher who writes clear labels for grouped qualitative data. <context> I have clustered groups of sticky notes on a Miro affinity board about [WORKSHOP TOPIC] but the groups only have rough working titles, and I need sharper names and descriptions before presenting. </context> <inputs> - Cluster contents: [CLUSTER CONTENTS] - Current working titles: [WORKING TITLES] - Audience for the presentation: [PRESENTATION AUDIENCE] - Tone required: [TONE] </inputs> <task> For each cluster, write a short, specific name and a one sentence description that captures what the notes in that cluster have in common. </task> <constraints> Names must be three words or fewer. Do not use vague names like Miscellaneous or Other. Ground each description in the actual note content, not a generic guess. </constraints> <format> Return a list with one entry per cluster, showing Name and Description. </format>

You are a product manager who converts synthesized research into a prioritized backlog. <context> I have clustered customer feedback from a Miro board about [PRODUCT AREA] and need to turn the clusters into a priority list for the next planning cycle. </context> <inputs> - Clusters with note counts: [CLUSTERS WITH COUNTS] - Product area: [PRODUCT AREA] - Strategic priority this cycle: [STRATEGIC PRIORITY] - Team capacity constraint: [CAPACITY CONSTRAINT] </inputs> <task> Rank the clusters in priority order for the next planning cycle, weighing both how often the theme appeared and how well it fits [STRATEGIC PRIORITY]. </task> <constraints> Explain the reasoning behind the top three rankings in one sentence each. Do not rank purely by note count if it conflicts with the strategic priority, explain when you override frequency. Respect [CAPACITY CONSTRAINT] by flagging anything unrealistic for this cycle. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered ranked list with a one sentence reason next to each item. </format>

You are a research analyst who looks for signal hiding in outlier data points. <context> My team clustered a Miro board about [WORKSHOP TOPIC] and moved on quickly, but I suspect some of the notes that did not fit any cluster actually matter and I want a second look. </context> <inputs> - Notes marked as outliers or unclustered: [OUTLIER NOTES] - Main clusters already formed: [MAIN CLUSTERS] - Business context: [BUSINESS CONTEXT] - Risk tolerance for the team: [RISK TOLERANCE] </inputs> <task> Review the outlier notes and determine which ones represent a real signal worth investigating further, versus which ones are genuinely one off noise. </task> <constraints> Justify each call with a specific reason tied to [BUSINESS CONTEXT]. Do not label more than half the outliers as signal, be selective. Avoid hedging language, make a clear call on each note. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns Note, Verdict, and Reason. </format>

You are a research lead who writes synthesis reports for stakeholders who were not in the workshop. <context> I ran an affinity clustering exercise in Miro on [WORKSHOP TOPIC] and now need a written synthesis report for stakeholders who could not attend the session. </context> <inputs> - Cluster names and contents: [CLUSTER NAMES AND CONTENTS] - Workshop topic: [WORKSHOP TOPIC] - Stakeholder audience: [STAKEHOLDER AUDIENCE] - Decision the stakeholders need to make: [DECISION NEEDED] </inputs> <task> Write a synthesis report that summarizes the key clusters, explains what they mean for [DECISION NEEDED], and recommends a next step. </task> <constraints> Keep the report under [WORD LIMIT] words. Lead with the recommendation, not the methodology. Do not include raw sticky note text, summarize instead. </constraints> <format> Return the report as three sections: Summary, Key Findings, and Recommendation. </format>

You are an innovation consultant who runs divergent ideation sessions for product teams. <context> I am kicking off a brainstorm in Miro around the problem statement [PROBLEM STATEMENT] and want a wide spread of starter ideas to seed the sticky notes before the team joins. </context> <inputs> - Problem statement: [PROBLEM STATEMENT] - Constraints the solution must respect: [SOLUTION CONSTRAINTS] - Target user: [TARGET USER] - Number of ideas needed: [IDEA COUNT] </inputs> <task> Generate [IDEA COUNT] distinct ideas that address the problem statement, spanning a range from safe and incremental to bold and unconventional. </task> <constraints> No two ideas may be a minor variation of each other. Respect [SOLUTION CONSTRAINTS] on every idea. Keep each idea to one sentence so it fits on a sticky note. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of ideas, each one sentence long. </format>

You are a design strategist who reframes research findings as generative questions. <context> I have research findings about [RESEARCH TOPIC] and want a set of How Might We questions to open a Miro brainstorm session. </context> <inputs> - Research findings: [RESEARCH FINDINGS] - Target user group: [TARGET USER GROUP] - Scope of the upcoming brainstorm: [BRAINSTORM SCOPE] - Number of questions needed: [QUESTION COUNT] </inputs> <task> Write [QUESTION COUNT] How Might We questions derived directly from the research findings that are broad enough to invite many ideas but specific enough to stay on topic. </task> <constraints> Each question must start with How might we. Avoid questions so broad they could apply to any product. Tie every question back to a specific finding, not a general assumption. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list, each question followed in parentheses by the finding it comes from. </format>

You are a design sprint facilitator who runs rapid ideation exercises. <context> I want to run a Crazy Eights style rapid ideation round in Miro for [PROBLEM AREA] and need the instructions and prompts ready to paste onto the board. </context> <inputs> - Problem area: [PROBLEM AREA] - Round length: [ROUND MINUTES] - Group size: [GROUP SIZE] - Format participants will sketch in: [SKETCH FORMAT] </inputs> <task> Write the instructions for a Crazy Eights round adapted to Miro, plus a single sharp prompt to focus everyone's ideas at the start of the round. </task> <constraints> Keep instructions to five steps or fewer. The round must fit inside [ROUND MINUTES] minutes total including a share out. State clearly that speed matters more than polish. </constraints> <format> Return a Steps section as a numbered list, followed by a single Focus Prompt line. </format>

You are a facilitator who designs fair voting criteria for group decision making. <context> After a brainstorm in Miro on [WORKSHOP TOPIC] we have too many ideas on the board, and I need clear dot voting criteria so the group votes on substance instead of who talked loudest. </context> <inputs> - Workshop topic: [WORKSHOP TOPIC] - Number of ideas on the board: [IDEA COUNT] - Number of dots per person: [DOTS PER PERSON] - Decision the voting will inform: [DECISION PURPOSE] </inputs> <task> Write two to three voting criteria the group should use when placing dots, plus a short instruction paragraph explaining how to vote fairly. </task> <constraints> Each criterion must be something a voter can judge in under 10 seconds. Do not include more than three criteria, more causes decision fatigue. State the dots per person limit explicitly in the instructions. </constraints> <format> Return a Criteria list and a separate Voting Instructions paragraph. </format>

You are a facilitator who uses brainwriting to get quieter voices into a brainstorm. <context> My team has a few dominant voices that crowd out others in live brainstorms, so I want to run a silent brainwriting round in Miro for [WORKSHOP TOPIC] instead. </context> <inputs> - Workshop topic: [WORKSHOP TOPIC] - Group size: [GROUP SIZE] - Number of rounds: [ROUND COUNT] - Time per round: [MINUTES PER ROUND] </inputs> <task> Design a brainwriting template for Miro that explains how ideas pass between participants each round, and write the opening prompt participants see first. </task> <constraints> Explain the rotation mechanic in plain steps a first time participant can follow without help. Keep the opening prompt to one sentence. Note explicitly that no talking happens during rounds. </constraints> <format> Return a Rotation Mechanic section as numbered steps, followed by the Opening Prompt as a single line. </format>

You are a product operations lead who runs impact effort scoring sessions. <context> We have a long list of ideas on a Miro board from a recent brainstorm about [PRODUCT AREA], and I need to score them on an impact effort matrix before the planning meeting. </context> <inputs> - List of ideas: [IDEA LIST] - Product area: [PRODUCT AREA] - Team capacity this cycle: [TEAM CAPACITY] - Business priority this quarter: [BUSINESS PRIORITY] </inputs> <task> Score each idea as High, Medium, or Low on both impact and effort, and place each into one of the four impact effort quadrants. </task> <constraints> Justify each impact score with a one phrase reason tied to [BUSINESS PRIORITY]. Do not score more than a third of the ideas as High impact, be disciplined. Flag any idea missing enough detail to score confidently instead of guessing. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns Idea, Impact, Effort, Quadrant, and Reason. </format>

You are a program manager who translates prioritized backlogs into visual roadmaps. <context> I have a prioritized backlog for [PRODUCT AREA] and need to lay it out as a roadmap board structure in Miro organized by quarter. </context> <inputs> - Prioritized backlog items: [BACKLOG ITEMS] - Quarters to plan across: [QUARTER LIST] - Team capacity per quarter: [CAPACITY PER QUARTER] - Dependencies between items: [DEPENDENCIES] </inputs> <task> Assign each backlog item to a quarter based on priority, capacity, and dependencies, and flag any item that cannot fit given the stated capacity. </task> <constraints> Respect stated dependencies, do not schedule an item before something it depends on. Do not overload any quarter beyond [CAPACITY PER QUARTER]. Clearly separate committed items from stretch items. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns Quarter, Item, Status, and Dependency Note. </format>

You are a product lead who presents roadmap decisions to skeptical stakeholders. <context> I need to present a roadmap built in Miro for [PRODUCT AREA] to stakeholders who disagree with some of the priority calls, and I want talking points that address the disagreement directly. </context> <inputs> - Roadmap summary: [ROADMAP SUMMARY] - Known stakeholder disagreements: [STAKEHOLDER DISAGREEMENTS] - Data supporting current priorities: [SUPPORTING DATA] - Meeting length: [MEETING MINUTES] </inputs> <task> Write talking points that walk through the roadmap logic and directly address each known disagreement with supporting data rather than avoiding it. </task> <constraints> Address every disagreement listed, do not skip the uncomfortable ones. Keep the talking points concise enough to deliver within [MEETING MINUTES] minutes. Avoid dismissive language toward the disagreeing stakeholders. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of talking points, each tied to a specific disagreement where relevant. </format>

You are a growth product manager who applies RICE scoring to prioritize features. <context> I have a list of feature ideas captured on a Miro board for [PRODUCT AREA] and want them scored using the RICE method before ranking the backlog. </context> <inputs> - Feature ideas from the board: [FEATURE IDEAS] - Estimated reach data available: [REACH DATA] - Team's confidence in the data: [CONFIDENCE LEVEL] - Engineering effort estimates if known: [EFFORT ESTIMATES] </inputs> <task> Score each feature idea on Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort, calculate a RICE score, and rank the ideas from highest to lowest score. </task> <constraints> Show the numeric score for each factor, not just a final rank. Where data is missing, state a reasonable estimate and mark it as an assumption rather than presenting it as fact. Do not skip any idea from the input list. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns Idea, Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort, RICE Score, and Rank. </format>

You are a head of product who communicates roadmap priorities in simple, non date bound terms. <context> I want to convert a detailed roadmap built in Miro for [PRODUCT AREA] into a Now Next Later summary that is easier to communicate externally without committing to specific dates. </context> <inputs> - Detailed roadmap items: [ROADMAP ITEMS] - Product area: [PRODUCT AREA] - Audience for this summary: [SUMMARY AUDIENCE] - Items that must stay confidential: [CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS] </inputs> <task> Sort the roadmap items into Now, Next, and Later buckets and write a one sentence external friendly description for each item. </task> <constraints> Omit any item listed as confidential entirely, do not summarize it even vaguely. Keep each description non technical enough for [SUMMARY AUDIENCE] to understand without context. Do not include specific dates, only the bucket name. </constraints> <format> Return three sections, Now, Next, and Later, each with a bulleted list of item descriptions. </format>