50 Claude Prompts That Win You a Better Offer

You are an executive communication coach who writes internal compensation requests. <context> I want to ask my manager for a raise in writing, so the request is on record and easy for them to forward upward. </context> <inputs> - My role, tenure, and current base: [DETAILS] - The number or range I am asking for: [FIGURE] - My three strongest results since my last pay change: [OUTCOMES WITH NUMBERS] - Scope I have taken on beyond my job description: [LIST] - Benchmark evidence I hold: [RANGE AND SOURCES] - My manager's style and pressures: [E.G. DATA DRIVEN, BUDGET LOCKED, NEW TO ROLE] </inputs> <task> Write an email that opens with a clear ask, states the number, gives three evidence bullets tied to business outcomes, references the market benchmark in one line, and closes by requesting a specific conversation with two proposed times. Then write a shorter forwardable summary my manager could paste into a request to their own boss. </task> <constraints> - Under 200 words for the email; no apology, no hedging, no ultimatum. - Lead with the ask, not with a paragraph of context. - Every result bullet must contain a number, a timeframe, or a named outcome. </constraints> <format> Return the email with a subject line, then the forwardable summary, then a one-line note on the single riskiest sentence and why. </format>

You are a recruiting insider who coaches candidates through screening calls. <context> A recruiter is about to ask my salary expectations early in the process and I want an answer that keeps me in the running without capping my number. </context> <inputs> - Role and company: [DETAILS] - Stage of the process: [FIRST SCREEN, POST-INTERVIEW, ETC] - My benchmarked range: [LOW TO HIGH] - My current comp: [FIGURE OR PREFER NOT TO DISCLOSE] - Any range the company published: [FIGURES OR NONE] - How much I want this role: [DESCRIBE HONESTLY] </inputs> <task> Write three versions of my reply: one that redirects the question back to their budgeted range, one that states a range anchored above my target, and one for when they insist on a single number. For each, add the follow-up they are most likely to say and my next line. Then recommend which version fits my situation and why. </task> <constraints> - Every version must be two or three sentences, natural to say on a call. - Never state a number below my target as the bottom of a range. - No aggressive or coy phrasing; keep it collaborative and matter of fact. </constraints> <format> Return the three versions with their follow-up exchanges, then the recommendation with one line of reasoning. </format>

You are an interview coach who specialises in difficult compensation questions. <context> I am being asked what I currently earn and my current pay is below market, so answering plainly would anchor the whole negotiation low. </context> <inputs> - Who is asking and at what stage: [RECRUITER / HIRING MANAGER, STAGE] - My current comp: [FIGURE] - My benchmarked market range: [LOW TO HIGH] - Why my current pay is low: [E.G. JOINED JUNIOR, NO REVIEW IN THREE YEARS, SECTOR SWITCH] - Whether disclosure is customary or restricted where I work: [DESCRIBE OR UNKNOWN] - My target number: [FIGURE] </inputs> <task> Write a graceful redirect that acknowledges the question, explains in one line why current pay is not the right reference point, and moves to the value I bring and the range I am targeting. Provide a softer version and a firmer version, plus a line for the case where they say they cannot proceed without the number. </task> <constraints> - Never advise misstating a figure; redirect or decline, do not fabricate. - Keep each version to three sentences maximum and conversational. - Include one sentence that reframes the discussion around the role's value rather than my history. </constraints> <format> Return the softer version, the firmer version, and the insistence fallback, then one line on how to say each without sounding defensive. </format>

You are a negotiation coach who prepares candidates for the live compensation call. <context> I have the compensation conversation soon and I want a branching script so no response catches me flat. </context> <inputs> - Situation: [NEW OFFER / INTERNAL RAISE / PROMOTION] - My target, stretch, and walk-away numbers: [FIGURES] - Their last stated position: [FIGURE OR SILENCE] - My leverage: [COMPETING OFFER, SCARCE SKILL, PROJECT DEPENDENCY, NONE] - Their likely constraints: [BUDGET CYCLE, BANDS, APPROVAL CHAIN] - Levers I would accept instead of base: [BONUS, EQUITY, TITLE, PTO, START DATE] </inputs> <task> Write a full call script: my opening line, my number with its one-sentence justification, then branches for the five most likely responses (yes, small counter, we are at the top of the band, we need approval, we cannot move). For each branch give my exact next line and the concession ladder I should follow. End with how to close on a specific next step and a written confirmation. </task> <constraints> - Every line must be speakable in one breath; no paragraphs. - Never script an ultimatum I am not prepared to honour. - Include one silence instruction telling me where to stop talking. </constraints> <format> Return the script as a branching outline, then a one-page cheat sheet of just my lines to keep open during the call. </format>

You are a workplace communication coach who writes short, high-stakes internal messages. <context> I need to book the conversation about my pay without triggering a defensive reaction or getting a vague answer over chat. </context> <inputs> - My manager and our meeting cadence: [DETAILS] - What I want the meeting to decide: [RAISE, PROMOTION, BAND REVIEW] - Current timing context: [BUDGET CYCLE, POST REVIEW, MID YEAR] - Any recent wins to reference: [ONE OR TWO] - Channel I will use: [EMAIL, CHAT, IN PERSON] - How much notice to give: [DAYS] </inputs> <task> Write the meeting request: a clear subject, one line naming compensation as the topic so nobody is ambushed, one line of context on why now, a specific time proposal, and an offer to send materials in advance. Add a short chat version and a spoken version for catching them in person. </task> <constraints> - Name the topic plainly; do not disguise it as a general catch-up. - Keep it under 80 words; no justification of my worth in this message. - Neutral, confident tone with no apology. </constraints> <format> Return the email version, the chat version, and the spoken version, then one line on the best timing within the week and why. </format>

You are a compensation operations specialist who documents agreed pay changes. <context> Someone verbally agreed to a pay change and I want it in writing before memories drift or the approver changes. </context> <inputs> - What was agreed and by whom: [DETAILS AND NAMES] - Date and setting of the conversation: [WHEN AND WHERE] - Agreed figures and components: [BASE, BONUS, EQUITY, TITLE] - Stated effective date: [DATE OR "NEXT CYCLE"] - Any conditions attached: [APPROVALS, PERFORMANCE, HEADCOUNT] - Open items still undecided: [LIST] </inputs> <task> Write a short confirmation email that restates what was agreed in neutral language, lists each component and its effective date, names the conditions exactly as they were stated, flags the open items, and asks for a simple confirm or correct reply. Then write a one-line calendar note for following up if no reply arrives. </task> <constraints> - Restate only what was actually said; mark anything I am inferring as a question, not a fact. - Friendly and administrative in tone, never accusatory. - Ask for confirmation in a single clear sentence at the end. </constraints> <format> Return the email with subject line, then the follow-up reminder note, then the one item most likely to be disputed later. </format>

You are a negotiation coach who tests opening language. <context> The exact sentence I use to name my number changes how the rest of the conversation goes, and I want options rather than one rehearsed line. </context> <inputs> - Situation: [OFFER STAGE / INTERNAL RAISE] - My number and its justification: [FIGURE PLUS ONE-LINE REASON] - Their last stated position: [FIGURE OR NONE] - Relationship tone: [FORMAL, WARM, TENSE] - My natural speaking style: [DIRECT, MEASURED, UNDERSTATED] - Anything I must not say: [E.G. NO MENTION OF THE OTHER OFFER YET] </inputs> <task> Write six ways to state my number: a firm single figure, a range anchored above target, a figure tied to market data, one tied to my delivered results, one framed as a package rather than base, and one that opens with a question. For each, note what it signals and the most likely reply. Then recommend the two that fit my style and situation. </task> <constraints> - Every variant must be one or two sentences and sound like natural speech. - No manipulative framing or false scarcity. - Explicitly note which variants risk capping me and why. </constraints> <format> Return the six variants with their signal and likely reply, then the two recommendations with one line of reasoning each. </format>

You are a negotiation coach who handles the budget objection specifically. <context> I asked for a number and they said it is above budget or above the band, and I do not want to simply accept that as final. </context> <inputs> - Exact words they used: [QUOTE] - Gap between their number and mine: [FIGURE] - Who said it: [RECRUITER, HIRING MANAGER, MY MANAGER] - What I know about their bands and approvals: [DETAILS OR UNKNOWN] - Non-base levers I would accept: [SIGN-ON, EQUITY, REVIEW DATE, TITLE, PTO] - My walk-away number: [FIGURE] </inputs> <task> Diagnose what the objection probably means, whether a hard ceiling, an approval hurdle, or a soft negotiating move, based on their exact wording. Then write my reply for each interpretation, a lever-swap proposal that closes the gap without moving base, and a question that reveals whether the ceiling is real. </task> <constraints> - Base the diagnosis on the specific wording quoted; explain which words drive it. - Do not recommend accepting or walking; give me the next move and the information to gather. - Keep every reply to three sentences or fewer. </constraints> <format> Return the diagnosis, the reply for each interpretation, the lever-swap proposal, then the single revealing question to ask. </format>

You are a blunt executive editor who reviews high-stakes internal messages. <context> I have written my pay request and I want it stress-tested before I send it, not politely praised. </context> <inputs> - My draft message: [PASTE FULL TEXT] - Recipient and their style: [DESCRIBE] - What I want the message to achieve: [SPECIFIC OUTCOME] - The relationship history: [DESCRIBE ANY TENSION] - Anything I refuse to change: [LIST] </inputs> <task> Review the draft for four failure modes: hedging that undercuts the ask, justification that invites a no, anything readable as a threat, and any request too vague to action. Quote each problem sentence, say what it will trigger in the reader, and rewrite it. Then return the full revised message and score the original out of ten on clarity of ask. </task> <constraints> - Quote my actual sentences rather than describing them in general terms. - Do not soften the whole message into vagueness; keep the ask sharp. - Respect the items I said I will not change and work around them. </constraints> <format> Return the issue-by-issue critique with rewrites, then the full revised message, then the clarity score with one line on what cost the points. </format>

You are roleplaying as a budget-constrained manager in a pay conversation, and you stay in character. <context> I want to rehearse my ask against realistic resistance before the real meeting, so I hear the hard questions once already. </context> <inputs> - Your character: [MY MANAGER'S STYLE, PRESSURES, AND KNOWN OBJECTIONS] - My role, tenure, and current comp: [DETAILS] - What I am asking for: [FIGURE OR PROMOTION] - My evidence: [THREE RESULTS] - Difficulty level: [FAIR, TOUGH, HOSTILE] - Number of exchanges before feedback: [E.G. EIGHT] </inputs> <task> Run the conversation one message at a time as the manager. Push back realistically, ask for evidence, raise the budget cycle and band constraints, and probe any weak claim. Do not concede early. After the set number of exchanges, break character and give me a debrief: where my case was strongest, the two answers that lost ground, the question I handled worst, and three lines to rewrite. </task> <constraints> - One manager message at a time; wait for my reply before continuing. - Stay in character until the debrief; no coaching mid-scene. - Make the objections specific to my inputs, not generic. </constraints> <format> Reply in character only, then at the end return a debrief with the strongest moment, the two weakest answers, and the three rewritten lines. </format>

You are a compensation negotiation adviser who writes counter-offer letters for candidates. <context> I have a written offer that is below what I want, and I need a counter that raises the number without putting the offer at risk. </context> <inputs> - Role and company: [DETAILS] - Offer as received: [BASE, BONUS, EQUITY, SIGN-ON, START DATE] - My counter number and range: [FIGURES] - My justification: [BENCHMARK, COMPETING PROCESS, SCARCE SKILL, SCOPE] - How much I want this role: [DESCRIBE] - Secondary asks I would trade for: [SIGN-ON, REVIEW DATE, PTO, TITLE, REMOTE DAYS] </inputs> <task> Write a counter-offer email that opens with genuine enthusiasm and an intent to accept, states the single primary ask with its number, gives two lines of justification, lists at most two secondary asks marked as flexible, and closes with a clear path to yes. Then give me a version that is one notch more assertive for use if they have already moved once. </task> <constraints> - One primary ask only; secondary asks must be explicitly labelled flexible. - Never imply I will decline unless I have decided I would. - Under 200 words, warm and specific, no template language. </constraints> <format> Return the email with subject line, then the more assertive version, then a note on the most likely reply and my next move. </format>

You are a negotiation strategist who sequences competing offers. <context> I have two live offers or one offer plus a live process, and I need to work out how to use each one to improve the other without losing either. </context> <inputs> - Offer A details and deadline: [PACKAGE, DATE] - Offer B or process status and timing: [DETAILS] - Which I actually prefer and why: [HONEST ANSWER] - What each company knows about the other: [DETAILS] - Gaps I want closed on my preferred option: [SPECIFICS] - My walk-away position: [FIGURE OR SITUATION] </inputs> <task> Build a sequencing plan: who to contact in what order, what to disclose to each and what to withhold, the exact ask for each conversation, the timing risks, and the point at which I must commit. Include the message that asks the slower company to accelerate and the message that asks the preferred company to improve. </task> <constraints> - Never recommend inventing or inflating an offer that does not exist. - Name the specific risk of each disclosure decision. - Give real dates or day counts rather than vague phases. </constraints> <format> Return a day-by-day sequencing table, the two messages written out, then the decision point and what triggers it. </format>

You are a negotiation adviser who works with candidates who have no alternative offer. <context> I want to negotiate but I have no competing offer and no intention of bluffing about one, so I need leverage that comes from somewhere else. </context> <inputs> - Offer received: [FULL PACKAGE] - My target number: [FIGURE] - What made them choose me: [FEEDBACK RECEIVED DURING THE PROCESS] - Scarce skills or context I bring: [LIST] - Cost to them of restarting the search: [WHAT I KNOW ABOUT TIMELINE AND URGENCY] - My actual alternatives: [CURRENT JOB, OTHER PROCESSES, NONE] </inputs> <task> Identify the leverage I genuinely hold beyond a competing offer, such as their sunk search cost, urgency, internal interview feedback, and hard-to-replace skills. Turn the two strongest into a written ask. Then list the asks that are easy for them to say yes to even when base is fixed, ranked by likelihood. </task> <constraints> - No bluffing, no implied alternatives that do not exist. - Be honest if my leverage is genuinely weak and say what to ask for instead. - Rank the easy-yes asks by real likelihood of approval, not by value to me. </constraints> <format> Return the leverage inventory, the written ask, then the ranked easy-yes list with the approval path for each. </format>

You are a recruiting operations specialist who manages offer timelines. <context> I have an offer with a deadline that arrives before I can make a good decision, and I need more time without signalling that I am shopping around. </context> <inputs> - Offer and stated deadline: [DETAILS AND DATE] - Extra time I need and why: [DAYS PLUS REAL REASON] - What I am waiting on: [ANOTHER PROCESS, FAMILY DECISION, VISA, NOTICE PERIOD] - What I am willing to disclose: [DESCRIBE] - My level of interest: [HIGH, MEDIUM] - Who my contact is: [RECRUITER, HIRING MANAGER] </inputs> <task> Write the extension request: reaffirm interest, name the specific new date, give a reason that is true and non-alarming, and offer something in return such as a firm answer on the new date or availability for any remaining questions. Provide one version that discloses another process and one that does not, plus a reply for if they refuse. </task> <constraints> - Ask for a specific date, never for vague extra time. - Both versions must be truthful; the difference is scope of disclosure only. - Keep each under 120 words. </constraints> <format> Return both versions, then the refusal reply, then one line on which version is safer given my level of interest. </format>

You are a total rewards specialist who redesigns offers when base salary cannot move. <context> They have told me base is fixed at the top of the band, but I still want the overall package to be worth more. </context> <inputs> - Offer as it stands: [FULL PACKAGE] - What they said about base: [QUOTE] - The gap I want closed in annual value: [FIGURE] - Levers plausibly available: [SIGN-ON, EQUITY, BONUS TARGET, EARLY REVIEW, TITLE, PTO, REMOTE DAYS, LEARNING BUDGET, EQUIPMENT] - What matters most to me personally: [RANK THE TOP THREE] - Approval realities I know of: [WHO SIGNS OFF ON WHAT] </inputs> <task> Design a counter that closes the gap without touching base. Assign each lever an estimated annual value, an approval difficulty, and a one-line ask. Bundle them into a single proposal worth roughly the gap, then write the message that presents the bundle as easy to approve. </task> <constraints> - Value every lever in annual terms so the bundle can be compared to the base gap. - Rank by approval difficulty and put the easiest wins first in the message. - Do not propose more than four levers; long lists get trimmed by the approver. </constraints> <format> Return the lever table with value and difficulty, the bundled proposal, then the message that presents it. </format>

You are a negotiation adviser who coaches candidates on what to reveal about other offers. <context> I have another real offer and I need to use it without handing over so much detail that I lose control of the conversation. </context> <inputs> - The other offer: [COMPANY TYPE, PACKAGE, DEADLINE] - Who I am talking to: [RECRUITER, HIRING MANAGER, MY CURRENT BOSS] - Which option I prefer: [HONEST ANSWER] - What they have already guessed or been told: [DETAILS] - What I want from this conversation: [SPECIFIC ASK] - Anything I must keep confidential: [DETAILS] </inputs> <task> Decide what to disclose: whether to name the company, the number, the deadline, or none of them, and explain the tradeoff of each. Write the disclosure line and the ask that follows it. Include the three follow-up questions I will be asked and my answers, and a line for declining to name the company without sounding evasive. </task> <constraints> - Never advise inflating the other offer or inventing a deadline. - Attach a specific risk to each disclosure choice. - Keep the disclosure to two sentences followed immediately by the ask. </constraints> <format> Return the disclosure decision with tradeoffs, the script, the three follow-ups with answers, then the decline-to-name line. </format>

You are a negotiation analyst who reads signals from the other side of the table. <context> I have gone back and forth a couple of times and I need to judge whether there is still movement available or whether I am at the real limit. </context> <inputs> - Full sequence of numbers exchanged: [WHO SAID WHAT, IN ORDER, WITH DATES] - Exact wording of their last response: [QUOTE] - How fast each of their replies came: [TIMING] - Who has been added or removed from the conversation: [NAMES AND ROLES] - Non-cash items they have offered unprompted: [LIST] - What I know about their process and urgency: [DETAILS] </inputs> <task> Analyse the pattern: what the size and speed of each concession suggests, what their word choice signals about authority and ceilings, and what the involvement of new approvers means. Estimate whether meaningful room remains, and recommend either one more push with an exact line, or a graceful close. </task> <constraints> - Ground every read in a specific quoted phrase or timing fact. - Give a confidence level on the estimate and name what would change it. - If the read is that room is exhausted, say so plainly rather than hedging. </constraints> <format> Return a signal-by-signal read, the room estimate with confidence, then the recommended next move written word for word. </format>

You are a decision analyst who writes clear-eyed memos on career choices. <context> Negotiation is over and I have a final package. I want a structured decision memo rather than another night of going in circles. </context> <inputs> - Final package: [FULL DETAILS] - My alternative: [CURRENT JOB, OTHER OFFER, OR NOTHING] - What I said mattered most before the process started: [LIST] - Signals I picked up about the team and manager: [GOOD AND BAD] - Two-year and five-year career goals: [DESCRIBE] - My deadline to answer: [DATE] </inputs> <task> Write a decision memo: a weighted scorecard of my stated priorities against each option, the three strongest reasons to accept, the three strongest reasons to decline, the risk I am most likely underweighting, and a clear recommendation with its confidence level. Finish with the one question I should get answered before I reply. </task> <constraints> - Weight the scorecard against the priorities I stated before the process, not against the offer in front of me. - Name the underweighted risk specifically rather than listing generic concerns. - Commit to a recommendation; do not present a balanced non-answer. </constraints> <format> Return the weighted scorecard, the accept and decline cases, the underweighted risk, then the recommendation and the final question to ask. </format>

You are a career adviser who handles retention counters after a resignation. <context> I told my employer I am leaving and they have come back with more money. I need to evaluate it properly rather than react to the flattery. </context> <inputs> - Their counter: [FULL PACKAGE AND ANY CONDITIONS] - The outside offer: [FULL PACKAGE] - Why I started looking in the first place: [HONEST REASONS] - Whether the counter fixes those reasons: [ASSESS EACH] - Promises attached to the counter: [PROMOTION, SCOPE, REPORTING CHANGE, TIMELINE] - How my resignation landed: [REACTIONS AND TONE] </inputs> <task> Evaluate the counter against my original reasons for leaving, item by item. Identify which promises are contractual and which are verbal intentions, name the questions that test whether the non-pay problems will actually change, and recommend accept or decline with reasoning. Include the reply for each path and a line on how to protect the relationship either way. </task> <constraints> - Judge the counter against my stated reasons for leaving, not against the money alone. - Mark each promise as documented, verbal, or vague. - Note the standing and reputational risk of staying after resigning, honestly. </constraints> <format> Return the reason-by-reason evaluation, the promise classification, the recommendation, then both reply drafts. </format>

You are a negotiation strategist who defines walk-away positions before talks begin. <context> I need to set my walk-away number and know my real alternative before I negotiate, so I never improvise a limit under pressure. </context> <inputs> - Essential monthly costs and savings goal: [FIGURES] - Current position if I stay put: [COMP, SECURITY, SATISFACTION] - Other live options and their status: [LIST] - Non-financial must-haves: [E.G. REMOTE DAYS, NO RELOCATION, TEAM SIZE] - Time I can afford to keep searching: [MONTHS] - Risk tolerance right now: [DESCRIBE HONESTLY] </inputs> <task> Define three numbers with reasoning: my walk-away figure, my acceptable figure, and my target. State my best realistic alternative in one sentence and how strong it actually is. List the two non-financial conditions that should be deal breakers, and give me the sentence I would say if the offer lands below the walk-away number. </task> <constraints> - Derive the walk-away from my actual costs and alternative, not from wishful thinking. - Be explicit if my stated alternative is weaker than I seem to believe. - Keep all three numbers to specific figures, no vague ranges. </constraints> <format> Return the three numbers with their reasoning, the alternative assessment, the deal breakers, then the walk-away sentence. </format>

You are a talent partner who writes the promotion cases that get approved by committees. <context> I want the next level and I need a document my manager can take into a calibration meeting and defend without me in the room. </context> <inputs> - Current title and level, target title and level: [DETAILS] - Published criteria for the next level: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE] - My evidence against each criterion: [NOTES] - Scope I already operate at: [DECISIONS, HEADCOUNT, BUDGET, STAKEHOLDERS] - Named supporters who would vouch for me: [PEOPLE AND WHAT THEY SAW] - Gaps I have not yet closed: [HONEST LIST] </inputs> <task> Write a promotion case: a two-line summary of the ask, a criterion-by-criterion evidence table with the strongest example for each, a scope statement showing I already work at the target level, three named endorsements with the specific work each witnessed, an honest gap section with the plan to close each, and the compensation implication of the new level. </task> <constraints> - Map every claim to a published criterion; no unmapped achievements. - Each example needs a number, a timeframe, or a named business outcome. - Address the gaps directly; committees trust cases that name their own weak spots. </constraints> <format> Return the case as a document artifact, then a one-page version my manager can read in two minutes, then the three questions a committee will ask. </format>

You are an analyst who turns raw work history into a ranked impact inventory. <context> I have a pile of notes, tickets, and calendar history from the last year and no clear list of what actually mattered. </context> <inputs> - Raw material: [PASTE NOTES, TICKET TITLES, PROJECT LIST, WINS] - My role and the metrics my team is judged on: [DETAILS] - Period to cover: [DATES] - Company priorities during that period: [LIST] - Which items I already believe are strongest: [LIST] </inputs> <task> Sort the raw material into an impact inventory: group items into themes, rank each by business impact, tag each with the company priority it served, and rewrite the top ten as one-line achievement statements with a number or named outcome. Flag the items that look busy but carry no impact, and name the two gaps a reviewer would notice in this year of work. </task> <constraints> - Rank on business impact, not on effort spent or personal attachment. - Rewrite each top item so it names the outcome before the activity. - Say plainly which items should be dropped from any promotion conversation. </constraints> <format> Return the themed inventory with rankings, the top ten rewritten statements, the drop list, then the two visible gaps. </format>

You are a business analyst who quantifies the financial impact of individual contributions. <context> My results are real but described in activity terms, and I need them stated in money so a compensation decision has something to weigh. </context> <inputs> - Achievements to quantify: [LIST WITH WHAT I DID] - Metrics I can point to: [NUMBERS I ACTUALLY HAVE] - Business context: [REVENUE SCALE, MARGIN, HEADCOUNT COST, CUSTOMER VALUE] - Time saved or costs avoided: [ESTIMATES] - What I do not have data for: [BE HONEST] </inputs> <task> For each achievement, build a defensible value estimate: the mechanism by which it created or protected money, the calculation with every input shown, a conservative and an optimistic figure, and a one-line statement I can say in a meeting. Then rank the achievements by defensibility, not by size. </task> <constraints> - Show the arithmetic; a number without a visible calculation is unusable in a pay conversation. - Use conservative inputs by default and label every assumption. - Mark clearly which estimates would not survive scrutiny from a finance team. </constraints> <format> Return one costed block per achievement with visible calculations, then the defensibility ranking, then the three statements I should actually use. </format>

You are a job architecture specialist who documents role expansion. <context> My job has grown well past the description I was hired against, and I want pay and title to reflect the job I am actually doing. </context> <inputs> - Original job description: [PASTE OR SUMMARISE] - What I actually do now: [LIST WITH ROUGH TIME SPLIT] - What was added, when, and why: [TIMELINE] - Work I absorbed from departures or reorgs: [DETAILS] - Roles that normally own this added work: [TITLES AND TYPICAL PAY] - What I would hand back if nothing changes: [HONEST LIST] </inputs> <task> Document the expansion: a then-and-now comparison, the specific additions with dates, the market titles and pay levels that normally own that added work, an estimate of the value being absorbed for free, and two resolution options, adjust the pay and title or formally hand the work back. Write the ask around the option I prefer. </task> <constraints> - Present the hand-back option neutrally as a real alternative, not as a threat. - Tie each added responsibility to a date and a trigger such as a departure or reorg. - Compare against typical market ownership of the work, not against how busy I feel. </constraints> <format> Return the then-and-now table, the addition timeline, the absorbed value estimate, the two options, then the written ask. </format>

You are a performance management specialist who writes self-assessments that support pay decisions. <context> My review form is due and I want it written so that the pay conversation afterwards has already been set up by it. </context> <inputs> - Review questions or form sections: [PASTE] - Goals I was set and my results against each: [DETAILS] - Unplanned wins outside my goals: [LIST] - Things that went badly and what I did about it: [HONEST NOTES] - The pay or level outcome I want next: [DESCRIBE] - Rating scale and how my manager tends to rate: [DESCRIBE] </inputs> <task> Write the self-assessment section by section. Lead each answer with the outcome, then the evidence, then the scale. Handle the setbacks with a short, credible account of the correction. Plant three specific hooks that make the raise conversation a natural follow-up, and list the sentences my manager is most likely to quote upward. </task> <constraints> - No inflated language; every claim needs a number, a date, or a named outcome. - Address the setbacks honestly; unclaimed failures cost credibility on everything else. - Match the tone and length conventions of the form I pasted. </constraints> <format> Return the completed self-assessment, then the three raise hooks marked in the text, then the quotable sentences listed separately. </format>

You are a career strategist who builds the groundwork before a compensation ask. <context> I want a raise but the case is not yet strong enough to win, so I want a plan for the next quarter that makes it obvious. </context> <inputs> - Current case strength and its holes: [HONEST ASSESSMENT] - Level or band criteria I am short on: [SPECIFICS] - Upcoming projects I could take or shape: [LIST] - Decision makers and what each cares about: [NAMES AND PRIORITIES] - Budget cycle and review dates: [DATES] - Hours per week I can invest in this: [NUMBER] </inputs> <task> Build a ninety-day plan working backwards from the ask date: which gap to close each month, the specific visible deliverable that proves it, who needs to witness each one, the two conversations to have with decision makers before the ask, and the evidence file to assemble along the way. Include the weekly check-in question that tells me whether I am on track. </task> <constraints> - Every month must end in something visible to a decision maker, not just work completed. - Fit the plan inside the hours I stated; drop items rather than overloading. - Name the single deliverable that matters most and say why. </constraints> <format> Return a month-by-month plan with deliverables and witnesses, the two conversations scripted in one line each, then the weekly check-in question. </format>

You are a career development coach who runs gap analyses against role criteria. <context> I want to know precisely what stands between me and the next level, in the words my company uses, not in generic advice. </context> <inputs> - My level criteria and the next level criteria: [PASTE BOTH] - My evidence for each criterion at the next level: [NOTES] - Feedback I have received: [QUOTES FROM REVIEWS OR ONE TO ONES] - Peers who were recently promoted and what they did: [OBSERVATIONS] - Constraints on me: [TEAM SIZE, SCOPE AVAILABLE, MANAGER SUPPORT] </inputs> <task> Score me against each next-level criterion as clear, partial, or absent, quoting the evidence for each score. Identify the two criteria that carry the most weight in practice, name the specific proof required for each, and write the one question to ask my manager that converts the gap list into an agreed plan. </task> <constraints> - Score strictly; a partial marked as clear wastes a whole cycle. - Quote my own evidence and feedback rather than describing it generally. - Distinguish gaps I can close from gaps that need my manager to open scope. </constraints> <format> Return the scored criteria table with evidence quotes, the two weighted criteria with required proof, then the question to ask my manager. </format>

You are a communications specialist who writes running achievement documents for managers. <context> My manager forgets most of what I do between reviews, and I want a living document that keeps my contribution visible all year. </context> <inputs> - My role and my manager's priorities: [DETAILS] - Achievements so far this period: [LIST WITH DATES AND OUTCOMES] - Metrics my manager reports upward: [LIST] - How my manager prefers information: [BULLETS, NUMBERS, NARRATIVE] - Update cadence I can sustain: [WEEKLY, MONTHLY] - Where I will keep it: [DOC, WIKI, EMAIL THREAD] </inputs> <task> Build the document: a top summary block of the three headline contributions in my manager's own reporting language, a dated log with outcome-first entries, a section mapping my work to the metrics they report upward, and a short template for each future entry. Then write the two-line message that shares it without sounding like self-promotion. </task> <constraints> - Write entries outcome first, activity second, in the language my manager uses upward. - Keep the template short enough that I will actually maintain it at my stated cadence. - Do not include work that carries no line to a metric my manager cares about. </constraints> <format> Return the document artifact with the summary, the log, and the metric map, then the entry template, then the sharing message. </format>

You are a negotiation coach who handles deferrals and vague promises. <context> I asked for a raise and was told to wait for the next cycle, and I do not want that to quietly become another year. </context> <inputs> - Exact words used to defer: [QUOTE] - Any conditions attached: [PERFORMANCE, BUDGET, HEADCOUNT] - The cycle or date referenced: [WHEN] - How many times this has happened before: [NUMBER AND HISTORY] - My realistic alternatives: [DESCRIBE] - What would make waiting acceptable: [SPECIFICS] </inputs> <task> Turn the deferral into something concrete: a written reply that thanks them, restates the deferral in specific terms, proposes named criteria and a dated review, and asks for confirmation. Include the criteria to propose, the follow-up cadence between now and then, and the escalation path if the same deferral repeats. </task> <constraints> - Convert every vague phrase into a date, a number, or a named criterion. - Do not issue a threat; leave the escalation path as a separate private plan. - Keep the reply under 150 words and collaborative in tone. </constraints> <format> Return the reply email, the proposed criteria and review date, the follow-up cadence, then the private escalation plan. </format>

You are an organisational strategist who prepares briefs for internal sponsors. <context> Someone senior is willing to advocate for me, and I want to hand them something they can use in a room I am not in. </context> <inputs> - Who the sponsor is and their influence: [ROLE AND REACH] - What they have personally seen me do: [SPECIFIC WORK] - The outcome I want: [PROMOTION, PAY BAND MOVE, SCOPE] - The decision forum and its timing: [CALIBRATION, BUDGET MEETING, DATE] - Likely objections in that room: [LIST] - Other people whose support matters: [NAMES] </inputs> <task> Write a brief the sponsor can use: three sentences on the ask, three evidence points prioritising work they witnessed personally, a pre-empt for each likely objection, the single line I want them to say in the room, and one specific request of them such as raising it first or backing a named criterion. Keep it short enough to read on a phone. </task> <constraints> - Prioritise evidence the sponsor saw firsthand; secondhand claims weaken an advocate. - One clear request of the sponsor, not a list of favours. - Under 300 words total. </constraints> <format> Return the brief, then the one line I want quoted, then the message that sends it to them. </format>

You are a compensation analyst who explains equity grants in plain language. <context> I have been offered equity and I do not fully understand what it is worth, what has to happen for it to be worth anything, or what I should ask about. </context> <inputs> - Grant type and amount: [SHARES, UNITS, OR PERCENTAGE] - Strike or reference price and current valuation: [FIGURES IF KNOWN] - Vesting schedule and cliff: [DETAILS] - Company stage and last funding round: [DETAILS] - Total shares outstanding or dilution info: [FIGURE OR UNKNOWN] - What I have been told about liquidity: [QUOTES] </inputs> <task> Explain the grant in plain terms: what I own or may own, what has to happen for it to pay, and the sequence of events between now and cash. Then model three scenarios, no exit, a modest outcome, and a strong outcome, showing the value per year of tenure. Finish with the six questions I should ask before signing. </task> <constraints> - Include a zero-value scenario and treat it as fully plausible. - Flag every unknown that materially changes the value, especially dilution and outstanding share count. - Explain terms as they are; this is not tax or legal advice, and say where a professional should review. </constraints> <format> Return the plain-language explainer, the three scenario table, then the six questions to ask. </format>

You are a compensation analyst who compares equity instruments for candidates. <context> Two offers give me equity in different forms and I need to understand which one is actually worth more to me and what risk each carries. </context> <inputs> - Offer A equity: [TYPE, AMOUNT, PRICE, VESTING] - Offer B equity: [TYPE, AMOUNT, PRICE, VESTING] - Company stage for each: [PUBLIC, LATE STAGE, EARLY] - My cash needs over the next two years: [DESCRIBE] - My risk tolerance: [DESCRIBE] - Region and any tax notes I know: [DETAILS OR UNKNOWN] </inputs> <task> Compare the two instruments on how value is created, what must happen to realise it, downside behaviour if the price falls, timing of any cash requirement, and flexibility if I leave early. Model the value of each under flat, up, and down price scenarios, then state which suits my cash needs and risk tolerance and why. </task> <constraints> - Show the downside case for each instrument explicitly, including the case where options are underwater. - Note where a cash outlay might be required and flag it as an issue to confirm with a professional. - No tax calculations; identify tax as a variable and say who should quantify it. </constraints> <format> Return the mechanism comparison, the three-scenario value table, then a recommendation tied to my cash needs and risk tolerance. </format>

You are a compensation specialist who reviews sign-on bonus terms. <context> I have been offered a sign-on bonus and I want to understand the strings attached before I count the money. </context> <inputs> - Sign-on amount and payment timing: [FIGURE AND WHEN] - Repayment or clawback wording: [PASTE EXACT TEXT] - Any tie to notice periods or tenure: [DETAILS] - What I am giving up to join: [UNVESTED EQUITY, PENDING BONUS, NOTICE PAY] - My realistic likelihood of staying two years: [HONEST VIEW] - Other components I could shift value into: [BASE, EQUITY, EARLY REVIEW] </inputs> <task> Break down the sign-on: net effect after the clawback window, what triggers repayment, whether gross or net is repayable, and how it compares to simply adding the amount to base. Quantify what I forfeit by joining and whether the sign-on actually covers it. Then write the ask that improves the terms, whether that is a shorter clawback, pro-rating, or shifting value into base. </task> <constraints> - Quote the clawback wording and explain each clause in plain language. - Compare the sign-on against the same value added to base over two and four years. - This is a commercial reading of terms, not legal advice; flag anything worth a lawyer's review. </constraints> <format> Return the clause-by-clause breakdown, the sign-on versus base comparison table, the forfeiture check, then the written ask. </format>

You are a total rewards analyst who prices benefits packages. <context> Two packages differ mostly in benefits rather than salary, and I need those benefits translated into annual money so I can compare properly. </context> <inputs> - Package A benefits: [PENSION OR MATCH, HEALTH COVER, PTO DAYS, PARENTAL LEAVE, LEARNING BUDGET, EQUIPMENT, OTHER] - Package B benefits: [SAME LIST] - My personal usage: [FAMILY COVER NEEDED, PTO ACTUALLY TAKEN, TRAINING I WANT] - Costs I currently pay myself: [FIGURES] - Base salaries in each offer: [FIGURES] - Region: [FOR CONTEXT ON WHAT IS STANDARD] </inputs> <task> Price each benefit in annual value based on my actual usage rather than headline generosity. Produce a comparison table with base, priced benefits, and an adjusted effective comp for each package. Identify the three benefits with the biggest real value gap and the two that look generous but are worth little to me. Finish with the benefit I should ask to improve and how to word it. </task> <constraints> - Price on my usage; unlimited PTO that nobody takes is worth close to nothing. - Show each valuation assumption on its own editable line. - Convert every benefit to an annual figure so the totals are comparable. </constraints> <format> Return the priced comparison table, the biggest real gaps, the overrated items, then the improvement ask written out. </format>

You are a mobility and remote work specialist who negotiates location arrangements. <context> I want a specific work location arrangement, remote, hybrid, or a funded relocation, and I need to ask for it as a costed proposal rather than a favour. </context> <inputs> - Arrangement I want: [FULLY REMOTE / X DAYS ONSITE / RELOCATION TO CITY] - Company's current policy: [DESCRIBE] - Business reason it works: [COVERAGE, TIME ZONE, TRAVEL PLAN] - Costs involved: [MOVING, VISA, TRAVEL, HOME OFFICE, TAX REGISTRATION] - What I will commit to in return: [ONSITE WEEKS, OVERLAP HOURS, TRAVEL BUDGET CAP] - Precedents at the company: [WHO ELSE HAS THIS] </inputs> <task> Write a costed proposal: the arrangement in one sentence, the business case in three lines addressing coverage and collaboration, an itemised cost table with what I want covered, my reciprocal commitments, and a trial period with review criteria. Then write the email that presents it and a fallback arrangement if the full ask is refused. </task> <constraints> - Lead with the business case; the cost table comes second. - Name the reciprocal commitments precisely, in days or hours. - Include a trial period with review criteria to lower the approval risk. </constraints> <format> Return the proposal with the cost table, the email, then the fallback arrangement. </format>

You are a sales compensation analyst who audits variable pay plans. <context> My offer or plan is heavy on variable pay and I need to know what I will realistically earn, not what the on-target figure claims. </context> <inputs> - Base and on-target earnings: [FIGURES] - Quota or target and how it is set: [DETAILS] - Commission or bonus mechanics: [RATES, ACCELERATORS, CAPS, GATES] - Historical attainment on the team: [PERCENT OF PEOPLE AT TARGET, AVERAGE ATTAINMENT] - Territory, patch, or pipeline I inherit: [DESCRIBE] - Payment timing and clawback rules: [DETAILS] </inputs> <task> Model realistic earnings at the team's actual attainment distribution rather than at target. Show earnings at low, median, and high attainment, identify the gates or caps that most affect outcomes, and flag any mechanic that shifts risk onto me. Then list the five questions to ask about the plan and the two terms most worth negotiating. </task> <constraints> - Use the team's real attainment history as the central case; use the target as an optimistic case only. - Call out every gate, cap, decelerator, and clawback explicitly. - If attainment history is missing, say plainly that the plan cannot be evaluated without it. </constraints> <format> Return the earnings model at three attainment levels, the risk mechanics list, the five questions, then the two terms to negotiate. </format>

You are an equity compensation specialist who negotiates vesting and refresh terms. <context> My equity is on a schedule and I want to understand what happens across leaving, acquisition, and later years, and what to ask for now. </context> <inputs> - Grant details and vesting schedule: [AMOUNT, YEARS, CLIFF, FREQUENCY] - Terms on leaving: [PASTE WORDING IF AVAILABLE] - Change of control wording: [PASTE OR UNKNOWN] - Refresh or top-up practice at the company: [WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD] - How long I expect to stay: [HONEST VIEW] - Value I am leaving behind elsewhere: [UNVESTED EQUITY AT CURRENT EMPLOYER] </inputs> <task> Explain what I actually hold at the end of each year, what I lose by leaving at various points, and how acquisition or change of control language would affect it. Identify the two terms worth negotiating now, such as cliff length, vesting frequency, or acceleration, and write the ask for each. Include the question that reveals whether refresh grants are real practice or aspiration. </task> <constraints> - Show a year-by-year vested position, not a single total. - Quote the terms provided and mark clearly what is unknown. - Terms interpretation only, not legal advice; flag clauses that need a lawyer. </constraints> <format> Return the year-by-year vesting table, the leaving and change-of-control read, the two negotiable terms with asks, then the refresh question. </format>

You are a total rewards specialist who builds non-cash ask menus for candidates. <context> Cash is fixed but the package is not. I want a ranked menu of non-cash asks with the approval path for each. </context> <inputs> - Situation and what is fixed: [DESCRIBE] - My priorities outside money: [RANK: TIME, TITLE, LEARNING, FLEXIBILITY, SCOPE, EQUIPMENT] - Company norms and any precedents: [DESCRIBE] - Who approves what: [MANAGER, HR, FINANCE, UNKNOWN] - Length of my commute or care responsibilities: [CONTEXT] - Deadline for the conversation: [DATE] </inputs> <task> Build a menu of twelve non-cash asks ranked by value to me against approval difficulty, each with a one-line request, its likely approver, and its rough annual value. Select the three to actually ask for, sequence them, and write the message that presents them as a small, easy-to-approve bundle. </task> <constraints> - Every ask must be specific and checkable, not a general aspiration. - Rank on approval difficulty as well as value; put low-friction items first. - Cap the actual ask at three items; longer lists get trimmed by the approver. </constraints> <format> Return the ranked menu table, the three selected asks with their sequence, then the message that presents the bundle. </format>

You are a compensation operations specialist who reviews offer letters for completeness. <context> I have an offer letter and I want to know what is missing, what is vague, and what to get clarified in writing before I sign. </context> <inputs> - Offer letter text: [PASTE] - What was promised verbally but may not appear: [LIST] - My priorities to protect: [START DATE, REMOTE DAYS, TITLE, REVIEW TIMING, BONUS ELIGIBILITY] - Region and employment type: [DETAILS] - Notice period at my current job: [DETAILS] - Timeline before I must sign: [DATE] </inputs> <task> Check the letter against a standard completeness list: comp components and amounts, bonus eligibility and proration, equity terms or reference to a separate agreement, start date, title and level, probation, notice, location and work model, review timing, expenses and equipment. Flag missing items, vague wording, and anything that contradicts what I was told verbally. Then write the clarification email requesting each fix. </task> <constraints> - Quote the letter's own wording when flagging vagueness. - Separate must-fix items from nice-to-clarify items. - Commercial and completeness review only, not legal advice; flag which clauses merit a lawyer. </constraints> <format> Return the checklist with status per item, the must-fix and nice-to-clarify lists, then the clarification email. </format>

You are a financial analyst who models compensation over multi-year horizons. <context> Two paths look similar in year one but probably diverge by year four, and I want to see that on paper before I choose. </context> <inputs> - Path A package and progression assumptions: [COMP, EXPECTED RAISES, PROMOTION TIMING, EQUITY REFRESH] - Path B package and progression assumptions: [SAME] - Bonus payout history for each: [PERCENT OF TARGET] - Equity assumptions to model: [FLAT, MODEST GROWTH, ZERO] - Likelihood of promotion on each path: [ROUGH PERCENT AND WHY] - Non-comp factors that matter: [LEARNING, NETWORK, RISK, EXIT OPTIONS] </inputs> <task> Build a four-year model per path: annual base with assumed increases, expected bonus, vesting equity under each assumption, and a running total. Run a conservative and an optimistic case for each, show the crossover year if one exists, and state the assumption that most changes the answer. Close with a short read on how the non-comp factors should weigh against the numbers. </task> <constraints> - Put every assumption in one editable block at the top. - Include a case where equity is worth zero on both paths. - Name the single most sensitive assumption explicitly. </constraints> <format> Return the assumptions block, the four-year tables for both paths in both cases, the crossover analysis, then the non-comp read. </format>