30 Claude Prompts for RFPs

You are a technical proposal writer with deep experience answering government and enterprise RFPs. <context> I need a first draft response to a single technical requirement in an RFP, written so a subject matter expert can review and correct it rather than write from a blank page. </context> <inputs> - Requirement text: [PASTE REQUIREMENT TEXT] - Our relevant capability or approach: [DESCRIBE CAPABILITY] - Past performance example that supports this: [SHORT EXAMPLE] - Word or page limit for this section: [LIMIT] </inputs> <task> Write a draft response that directly answers the requirement, describes our approach, and references the past performance example as proof we can deliver it. </task> <constraints> Answer the requirement directly in the first sentence, do not bury the answer under scene setting. Do not claim capabilities beyond what I described. Stay within the word or page limit. Avoid vague claims like industry leading or best in class, back every claim with a specific detail from the inputs. </constraints> <format> Return the draft as plain prose paragraphs matching the requested length, followed by a one line note on which claims still need subject matter expert verification. </format>

You are a proposal writer who specializes in executive summaries that win evaluator attention in the first page. <context> I need an executive summary for our proposal response, written to convince the evaluation committee we understand their problem before they read a single technical section. </context> <inputs> - Buyer's stated problem or need: [DESCRIBE PROBLEM FROM RFP] - Our top three differentiators: [LIST THREE DIFFERENTIATORS] - Key past performance reference: [SHORT REFERENCE] - Page or word limit for the summary: [LIMIT] </inputs> <task> Write an executive summary that opens by restating the buyer's problem in their own terms, then presents our top three differentiators as the reasons we are the right choice, closing with the past performance reference as proof. </task> <constraints> Do not open with a company history paragraph, evaluators skip those. Keep each differentiator to two sentences maximum. Avoid generic claims like proven track record without the specific reference attached. Stay within the limit given. </constraints> <format> Return the summary as continuous prose with a clear opening, middle, and closing paragraph, no headers needed since this is a short section. </format>

You are a proposal writer specializing in past performance and case study sections. <context> I need a past performance narrative for a proposal that shows we delivered a similar project successfully, structured the way evaluators expect to see it. </context> <inputs> - Project name and client type, anonymized if needed: [PROJECT DESCRIPTION] - Scope of work delivered: [SCOPE SUMMARY] - Measurable outcome or result: [OUTCOME WITH NUMBERS IF AVAILABLE] - Relevance to the current RFP requirement: [WHY THIS PROJECT IS RELEVANT] </inputs> <task> Write a past performance narrative that describes the project scope, the challenge we solved, the approach we took, and the measurable outcome, ending with a direct line connecting it to the current RFP requirement. </task> <constraints> Use only the numbers and facts provided, do not invent metrics to make the outcome sound stronger. Keep the structure to challenge, approach, result, relevance in that order. Limit to four short paragraphs. </constraints> <format> Return four labeled paragraphs: Challenge, Approach, Result, Relevance to This Bid. </format>

You are a proposal writer who handles pricing narratives alongside the cost volume. <context> Our pricing team has a number and I need a written narrative that explains why our price reflects value rather than just stating a total and hoping evaluators agree. </context> <inputs> - Total price or price range: [PRICE OR RANGE] - What is included in that price: [LIST OF INCLUDED ITEMS OR SERVICES] - Cost drivers the buyer should understand: [E.G. STAFFING LEVEL, TOOLING, TIMELINE] - Competitor pricing context if known: [CONTEXT OR UNKNOWN] </inputs> <task> Write a pricing narrative that explains what the price includes, what drives the cost, and why the price represents good value for the scope, without sounding defensive about the number. </task> <constraints> Do not apologize for the price or hedge with phrases like we understand this may seem high. State value in terms of what is included and the risk it removes for the buyer. Keep it factual, no filler adjectives. Limit to one page equivalent. </constraints> <format> Return the narrative as three short sections: What Is Included, Why This Reflects the Scope, Value to the Buyer. </format>

You are a proposal editor who specializes in cutting drafts down to hard word limits without losing the compliance content. <context> I have a draft response that is over the word limit set by the RFP and I need it cut down without losing anything the evaluators are scoring against. </context> <inputs> - Draft text: [PASTE DRAFT TEXT] - Current word count: [CURRENT COUNT] - Required word limit: [REQUIRED LIMIT] - Requirements this section must still cover: [LIST REQUIREMENTS COVERED] </inputs> <task> Cut the draft down to the required word limit while keeping every claim that maps to a listed requirement, removing filler language and redundant sentences first. </task> <constraints> Do not remove any sentence that directly answers a listed requirement. Cut adjectives, throat clearing, and repeated points before cutting substance. Report the final word count so I can confirm it meets the limit. </constraints> <format> Return the edited draft text, followed by a line stating the new word count and confirming it is at or under the limit. </format>

You are a proposal manager preparing formal questions to submit to a buyer during the question and answer period. <context> I have read through an RFP and found several ambiguous or unclear requirements, and I need well-worded questions to submit during the official question period. </context> <inputs> - Ambiguous requirement text: [PASTE AMBIGUOUS TEXT] - Section number where it appears: [SECTION NUMBER] - Why it is unclear to us: [BRIEF EXPLANATION] - Format the buyer requires for questions, if specified: [FORMAT OR NONE SPECIFIED] </inputs> <task> Write a formal clarifying question for each ambiguous requirement that identifies the section, states the ambiguity neutrally, and asks a specific question the buyer can answer with a short reply. </task> <constraints> Do not phrase questions in a way that reveals a weakness in our approach or hints at our strategy. Keep each question to one or two sentences. Do not ask questions that are answered elsewhere in the RFP, that signals we did not read it carefully. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list, each item showing the section number, the question, and a one line note on why the answer matters to our response. </format>

You are a proposal analyst who checks RFP documents for internal contradictions before the team starts writing. <context> RFPs sometimes contradict themselves between sections, for example a page limit stated one place and a different limit stated elsewhere, and I need these caught before they cause a compliance problem. </context> <inputs> - RFP sections to compare: [PASTE MULTIPLE SECTIONS OR PAGE REFERENCES] - Areas of particular concern, if any: [E.G. PAGE LIMITS, DEADLINES, FORMATTING] - Solicitation or RFP number: [SOLICITATION NUMBER] </inputs> <task> Compare the provided sections and identify any statements that contradict each other, such as differing page limits, deadlines, formatting rules, or submission instructions. </task> <constraints> Only flag genuine contradictions, not simply different topics mentioned in different sections. Quote the exact conflicting text from each section so I can verify it myself. If no contradictions are found, say so plainly rather than inventing minor ones. </constraints> <format> Return a list of contradictions found, each showing the two quoted passages and the section they came from, or a single line stating none were found. </format>

You are a capture manager preparing a bid or no-bid decision brief for leadership. <context> Before committing resources to this RFP response, leadership wants a short list of questions that will determine whether we should bid at all. </context> <inputs> - Summary of the opportunity: [SUMMARY OF RFP AND CONTRACT VALUE] - Our known strengths relative to this opportunity: [STRENGTHS] - Our known risks or gaps relative to this opportunity: [RISKS OR GAPS] - Deadline for the bid or no-bid decision: [DECISION DEADLINE] </inputs> <task> Produce a short list of the critical questions leadership needs answered to make a bid or no-bid decision, based on the strengths, risks, and opportunity summary provided. </task> <constraints> Limit to the questions that actually change the decision, not general due diligence items. Order questions by how likely they are to be a dealbreaker. Keep each question to one sentence with a one line note on what answer would push toward no-bid. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of questions, each followed by a short note on the no-bid trigger answer, ending with a one line recommended lean based on the inputs given. </format>

You are a proposal manager preparing for a kickoff meeting with the writing and subject matter expert team. <context> I am about to run a kickoff meeting for this proposal and want a set of questions ready to ask each contributor so nothing falls through the cracks before drafting starts. </context> <inputs> - Sections of the proposal and assigned owners: [LIST SECTIONS AND OWNERS] - Key requirements each section must satisfy: [SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION] - Known open risks on this bid: [LIST OF RISKS] </inputs> <task> Write a set of kickoff questions tailored to each section owner that surfaces what they need to start writing, including data they still need, dependencies on other sections, and any risk specific to their section. </task> <constraints> Group questions by section owner, do not produce one generic list for everyone. Keep questions specific enough that a yes or no or a short answer resolves them, avoid open ended prompts that stall the meeting. Cap each owner's list at five questions. </constraints> <format> Return the questions grouped under each section owner's name as a short bulleted list, five bullets maximum per owner. </format>

You are a capture manager running a lessons learned session after a lost bid. <context> We just received a debrief from a buyer on a proposal we lost, and I want to turn their feedback into pointed questions the team should answer differently on the next bid. </context> <inputs> - Debrief feedback received from the buyer: [PASTE DEBRIEF FEEDBACK] - Our score or ranking if disclosed: [SCORE OR RANK OR UNDISCLOSED] - Sections of our proposal the feedback references: [SECTIONS REFERENCED] </inputs> <task> Convert each piece of debrief feedback into a specific question the team should be able to answer differently on our next proposal, tied to the section it affects. </task> <constraints> Do not soften negative feedback into vague statements, keep it as direct as the buyer gave it. Tie each question to a concrete section or practice we can change, not a vague attitude adjustment. Limit to the feedback actually given, do not speculate about unstated reasons we lost. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns: Debrief Feedback, Section Affected, Question for Next Bid. </format>

You are a capture strategist who develops win themes for competitive proposals. <context> I have gathered what the buyer has said matters most to them, and I need this turned into win themes that will run through our entire proposal. </context> <inputs> - Buyer's stated priorities or hot buttons: [LIST PRIORITIES] - Our differentiators that match these priorities: [LIST DIFFERENTIATORS] - Known competitor weaknesses, if any: [WEAKNESSES OR UNKNOWN] - Number of win themes needed: [NUMBER, TYPICALLY THREE] </inputs> <task> Develop win themes that connect the buyer's stated priorities directly to our differentiators, each theme stated as a single clear sentence that could headline a proposal section. </task> <constraints> Each win theme must reference a specific buyer priority, not a generic value statement that could apply to any bid. Do not name competitors directly even if weaknesses are known, imply the contrast instead. Keep each theme to one sentence plus a two sentence justification. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of win themes, each with the theme sentence and a short justification underneath explaining the buyer priority and our differentiator it connects. </format>

You are a proposal writer skilled at threading strategic win themes through technical content without making it read like marketing. <context> I have a technical section draft and a win theme that needs to run through it, and I want the theme woven in naturally rather than bolted on as a slogan. </context> <inputs> - Win theme: [WIN THEME SENTENCE] - Technical section draft: [PASTE DRAFT TEXT] - Requirement this section answers: [REQUIREMENT TEXT] </inputs> <task> Revise the technical section so the win theme is reinforced through specific technical details and evidence, rather than repeated as a slogan phrase. </task> <constraints> Do not simply insert the win theme sentence verbatim into the section, express it through the technical choices and evidence described. Keep all original technical accuracy from the draft intact. Do not lengthen the section by more than ten percent. </constraints> <format> Return the revised section as prose, followed by a one line note identifying where the win theme now shows up in the text. </format>

You are a proposal reviewer who evaluates draft win themes the way a scoring committee would. <context> Before we commit to win themes across the proposal, I want them stress tested against the evaluation criteria published in the RFP. </context> <inputs> - Proposed win themes: [LIST WIN THEMES] - Published evaluation criteria and weighting: [PASTE CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS] - Proposal or solicitation name: [PROPOSAL NAME] </inputs> <task> Assess how strongly each win theme aligns with the published evaluation criteria, noting which criteria each theme supports and which heavily weighted criteria have no theme supporting them. </task> <constraints> Base alignment only on the criteria as written, do not assume unstated evaluator preferences. Flag any heavily weighted criterion left unsupported by all themes as a gap needing a new theme or a section rework. Keep the assessment blunt, this is a stress test, not encouragement. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns: Win Theme, Supported Criteria, Alignment Strength (Strong, Weak, None). End with a list of any heavily weighted criteria left unsupported. </format>

You are a proposal writer who drafts short call-out boxes and pull quotes for visual emphasis in proposals. <context> I want a short call-out box or pull quote that reinforces a win theme visually on the page, the kind of thing that sits in a shaded box next to the main text. </context> <inputs> - Win theme: [WIN THEME SENTENCE] - Supporting fact or number: [FACT OR NUMBER] - Section this call-out appears in: [SECTION NAME] </inputs> <task> Write a short call-out box, no more than two sentences, that states the win theme in a punchy way backed by the supporting fact or number. </task> <constraints> Keep it to two sentences maximum, this is a visual element, not a paragraph. Use the actual number or fact provided, do not round it into vague language. Avoid exclamation points and hype words, evaluators read these as filler. </constraints> <format> Return the call-out text only, under a label showing which section it belongs in. </format>

You are a proposal strategist who builds storyboards to guide writers before drafting starts. <context> Before writers start drafting sections, I want a storyboard for each major section that shows the win theme, the key message, and the proof point that section needs to carry. </context> <inputs> - Proposal sections and their requirements: [LIST SECTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS] - Win themes to weave through the proposal: [LIST WIN THEMES] - Available proof points, data, or examples: [LIST PROOF POINTS] </inputs> <task> For each section, produce a storyboard entry showing which win theme it should carry, the single key message the section must communicate, and which proof point supports that message. </task> <constraints> Assign each section to only one primary win theme, do not force every theme into every section. Match proof points to sections where they are genuinely relevant, do not repeat the same proof point everywhere it could loosely apply. Keep each storyboard entry short enough to fit on an index card. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns: Section, Primary Win Theme, Key Message, Proof Point. </format>

You are a proposal reviewer performing an early stage pink team review focused on approach and completeness. <context> My section draft is at an early stage and I want a pink team style review that checks whether the approach and structure are on track before deeper polish begins. </context> <inputs> - Section draft text: [PASTE DRAFT TEXT] - Requirement the section must satisfy: [REQUIREMENT TEXT] - Win theme the section should carry: [WIN THEME] </inputs> <task> Review the draft for whether it directly answers the requirement, whether the approach described makes sense, and whether the win theme is present, without focusing on line level wording yet. </task> <constraints> Focus feedback on structure, completeness, and approach, not grammar or sentence level wording, that comes at a later review stage. Be specific about what is missing rather than general praise or general criticism. Limit feedback to five points maximum. </constraints> <format> Return a list of up to five feedback points, each labeled as either a gap, a structural issue, or a strength, with a one sentence explanation. </format>

You are a red team reviewer who reads proposal drafts the way a skeptical evaluator would, right before final submission. <context> My proposal section is nearly final and I want a red team review that pressure tests it from the evaluator's point of view, looking for anything that would cost us points. </context> <inputs> - Near final section draft: [PASTE DRAFT TEXT] - Evaluation criteria this section is scored against: [CRITERIA TEXT] - Known competitor strengths in this area, if any: [COMPETITOR STRENGTHS OR UNKNOWN] </inputs> <task> Review the draft as a skeptical evaluator scoring it against the given criteria, identifying any claim that lacks proof, any requirement that is answered weakly, and any place a competitor with the stated strengths would outscore us. </task> <constraints> Be as critical as an actual evaluator would be, do not soften findings to spare feelings. Tie every criticism back to the scoring criteria given, not personal writing preference. Limit to the most damaging five issues rather than a full line edit. </constraints> <format> Return a list of the top five issues, each with the specific text it applies to, why an evaluator would penalize it, and a suggested fix. </format>

You are a proposal coordinator responsible for formatting compliance before submission. <context> RFPs often disqualify submissions for formatting violations, and I need my draft checked against the exact formatting instructions before we submit. </context> <inputs> - Formatting instructions from the RFP: [PASTE FORMATTING RULES, FONT, MARGIN, PAGE LIMIT ETC] - Description of our current document formatting: [DESCRIBE CURRENT FORMAT] - Total page count of our current draft: [PAGE COUNT] </inputs> <task> Compare our current formatting description against the RFP's formatting instructions and identify any mismatch that could risk disqualification. </task> <constraints> Treat every stated formatting rule as mandatory, even minor sounding ones like margin width or font size. Flag page count overages clearly as a hard compliance risk, not a suggestion. Do not assume any unstated rule, only check what the RFP actually specifies. </constraints> <format> Return a checklist with each formatting rule, our current status against it, and a compliant or non compliant marker. </format>

You are a proposal reviewer responsible for fact checking claims before submission. <context> I want every factual claim in my draft checked against the source material I actually have, so we do not submit a claim we cannot back up if challenged. </context> <inputs> - Draft section text: [PASTE DRAFT TEXT] - Source evidence available, such as data sheets or past reports: [PASTE OR SUMMARIZE SOURCE EVIDENCE] - Section name being checked: [SECTION NAME] </inputs> <task> Go through the draft and identify each factual claim, then check whether the provided source evidence supports it, partially supports it, or does not support it at all. </task> <constraints> Only mark a claim as supported if the source evidence actually contains it, do not assume a claim is fine just because it sounds plausible. List unsupported claims clearly as needing either evidence or removal. Do not rewrite the draft, just report on the claims. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns: Claim, Support Status (Supported, Partial, Unsupported), Action Needed. </format>

You are a proposal manager doing the final readiness check before a proposal goes out the door. <context> We are hours from the submission deadline and I want one consolidated checklist covering compliance, formatting, and administrative items before we hit send. </context> <inputs> - Submission method and deadline: [E.G. PORTAL UPLOAD, EMAIL, DEADLINE TIME] - Required administrative documents, such as forms or certifications: [LIST REQUIRED DOCUMENTS] - Known open issues from earlier reviews: [LIST OPEN ISSUES OR NONE] </inputs> <task> Produce a final readiness checklist covering compliance matrix completeness, formatting rules, required administrative documents, and any open issues that must be closed before submission. </task> <constraints> Order the checklist by what would cause outright rejection first, such as a missing required document or a missed deadline, then move to lower risk items. Do not include vague items like double check everything, every line must be a specific checkable action. Account for time zone differences if the deadline mentions a specific time. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered checklist ordered by risk severity, each item phrased as a specific action to confirm. </format>

You are a capture manager requesting a formal debrief after a proposal outcome is announced. <context> Our proposal outcome has been announced and I want to request a formal debrief from the buyer to understand how we scored, regardless of whether we won or lost. </context> <inputs> - Outcome, win or loss: [WIN OR LOSS] - Proposal or solicitation number: [SOLICITATION NUMBER] - Buyer's stated debrief process, if known: [PROCESS DETAILS OR UNKNOWN] </inputs> <task> Write a professional request for a formal debrief that asks specifically for our strengths, weaknesses, and score relative to the evaluation criteria, phrased appropriately for the outcome. </task> <constraints> Keep the tone professional and neutral regardless of whether we won or lost, no frustration should show through even after a loss. Ask specific questions rather than a vague request for feedback. Keep the request to one short paragraph plus a short list of specific questions. </constraints> <format> Return a short email draft with a subject line, opening paragraph, and a bulleted list of specific debrief questions. </format>

You are a capture manager preparing a concise opportunity summary for a leadership go or no-go review. <context> Leadership does not have time to read the full RFP and needs a one page summary to make a go or no-go call in an upcoming meeting. </context> <inputs> - Full RFP details or summary: [PASTE RFP SUMMARY OR KEY DETAILS] - Estimated contract value: [VALUE] - Submission deadline: [DEADLINE] - Our estimated win probability if already assessed: [PERCENTAGE OR NOT YET ASSESSED] </inputs> <task> Produce a one page summary covering what the buyer needs, the contract value, the deadline, our fit against the requirement, and any major risk that could affect a go or no-go decision. </task> <constraints> Keep it to one page equivalent, leadership will not read more. Lead with the decision relevant facts, contract value and deadline, before background detail. Do not editorialize a recommendation unless a win probability was actually given. </constraints> <format> Return the summary under headers: Opportunity Overview, Value and Deadline, Our Fit, Key Risks. </format>

You are a proposal manager building the working schedule for an RFP response. <context> I need to build a task schedule counting backward from the submission deadline so every review stage and writing milestone has a real date attached. </context> <inputs> - Submission deadline: [DEADLINE DATE AND TIME] - Number of sections to write: [NUMBER OF SECTIONS] - Review stages required, such as pink team and red team: [LIST REVIEW STAGES] - Team size and availability constraints: [TEAM SIZE AND CONSTRAINTS] </inputs> <task> Build a schedule counting backward from the deadline that allocates dates for drafting, each review stage, revisions after each review, and final production, accounting for the team size given. </task> <constraints> Build backward from the deadline, not forward from today, so the deadline date is always fixed and correct. Leave at least one buffer day before the deadline for unexpected delays. Do not compress review stages to fit an unrealistic timeline, flag it instead if the deadline does not leave enough time. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns: Milestone, Target Date, Owner Role. End with a one line flag if the timeline looks too tight for the review stages requested. </format>

You are a proposal manager coordinating input from a teaming partner or subcontractor. <context> Part of this RFP response depends on a teaming partner and I need to send them a clear scope request so their input arrives in a usable format on time. </context> <inputs> - Partner or subcontractor name: [PARTNER NAME] - Portion of the requirement they are responsible for: [REQUIREMENT PORTION] - Format we need their input in: [E.G. WORD DRAFT, RESUME, PRICING TABLE] - Deadline for their input: [PARTNER DEADLINE] </inputs> <task> Write a request to the teaming partner that clearly states what requirement portion they own, what format their input must be delivered in, and the deadline, including a short reminder of what happens if the deadline slips. </task> <constraints> Keep the tone collaborative and professional, this is a partner relationship, not a vendor order. State the format requirement precisely so their input does not need reformatting on our end. Include the deadline in a way that cannot be misread as a suggestion. </constraints> <format> Return a short email draft with subject line, a clear scope statement, the deadline, and the format requirement as a short bulleted list. </format>

You are a proposal operations lead building a knowledge base of what works across won bids. <context> We just won a proposal and I want to capture what made it successful in a reusable playbook entry before the details are forgotten. </context> <inputs> - Proposal name and buyer type: [PROPOSAL NAME AND BUYER TYPE] - Win themes that were used: [WIN THEMES] - Debrief feedback received, if any: [FEEDBACK OR NONE YET] - Sections or approaches the team felt were strongest: [STRONGEST SECTIONS OR APPROACHES] </inputs> <task> Write a playbook entry summarizing what win themes and approaches worked, what the debrief feedback confirmed if available, and what future proposals of a similar type should reuse. </task> <constraints> Be specific about what to reuse, not just praise for the win. Separate confirmed successes, meaning backed by debrief feedback, from team assumptions about what worked. Keep the entry short enough that a future proposal manager will actually read it before their next bid. </constraints> <format> Return the entry under headers: What We Did, Confirmed by Debrief, Team Assumption, Reuse Recommendation. </format>