150 Claude Prompts That Build Slide Decks

<context> I'm meeting a [target persona, e.g. Director of RevOps at a $50-200M SaaS company] for our first discovery call. Goal: validate fit, qualify their pain, and earn the right to a second meeting. Not pitching. </context> <inputs> - Product / category: [briefly] - Prospect's company: [name + size + recent signals from their site, LinkedIn, press] - Their likely pain points based on role + stage: [list] - The customer story most relevant to them: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide discovery deck designed to be 80% questions, 20% telling. Slide order: (1) Title slide — neutral, "[my company] x [their company] — exploratory conversation", (2) What I researched about them (signals shows respect for their time), (3) 3 questions about their context (current state, KPIs, structure), (4) 3 questions about their pain (what hurts, what's been tried, what hasn't worked), (5) Their likely problem reframed as a customer story (the 1 most-relevant customer), (6) How we typically engage at this stage (not the demo), (7) The 3-step process from here, (8) Mutual fit criteria — when we'd say no to them, when they'd say no to us, (9) Next-step options, (10) Questions for me from them. </task> <constraints> - The deck is 80% questions, 20% telling — resist the urge to pitch - Slide 5 should be ONE customer story, not 3 - Slide 8 (mutual fit) is the differentiator — it builds trust by signaling we walk away from bad fits </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Each question on its own bulleted line. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We've had 2-3 discovery calls. The prospect is interested. Now I need to build a quantified business case that the economic buyer can sign off on. Mid-funnel deck. </context> <inputs> - Prospect's situation: [current state, key metrics, what's hurting] - Our solution mapped to their problem: [briefly] - Expected outcomes for them: [revenue, cost, time, risk] - Investment required from them: [pricing, implementation cost, internal effort] - Comparable customer outcomes: [1-2 specific examples] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide business case deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "[their company] business case", (2) Their current state (what's hurting, the dollar cost), (3) The opportunity — quantified upside if solved, (4) Our solution mapped to their specific situation, (5) Expected outcomes — table of metrics, baseline, expected post-implementation, (6) Investment required — total cost of ownership, year 1 and year 2+, (7) Comparable customer — 1 customer's actual numbers, (8) Risks + mitigations, (9) Recommended next step + timeline. </task> <constraints> - Every claim of value must reference a specific number from their inputs OR a comparable customer - Slide 6 must show TCO, not just product price - Slide 7 should be ONE customer, with specifics — not 3 logos </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for expected outcomes and TCO. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> The deal is at the pricing conversation. I need a clean pricing deck that explains the packaging, the rationale, and gives the buyer language to defend the choice internally. </context> <inputs> - Pricing tiers: [list with what's included] - This buyer's likely fit: [tier] - Volume / discount levers we have: [briefly] - Negotiation room I have: [briefly] - Customer-favorite packaging questions: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide pricing + packaging deck. Slide order: (1) Title, (2) The way we price + why (the philosophy), (3) Tier comparison — what's in each, (4) Recommended tier for this buyer + why, (5) Add-ons or modules, (6) Volume + multi-year terms, (7) What they get on day 1, day 30, day 90, (8) Next steps + signature path. </task> <constraints> - Slide 2 (philosophy) is the senior signal — buyers trust pricing that has a reason behind it - Slide 4 should explicitly justify the recommendation, not just state it - Slide 7 (day 1 / 30 / 90) reduces buyer anxiety about post-purchase </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown table for tier comparison. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> The deal is moving but the buyer's CFO needs an explicit ROI calculation. I need a deck that's basically a model — inputs, math, outputs, sensitivities. </context> <inputs> - Buyer's baseline: [current cost / revenue / time-spent on the problem] - Our impact assumptions: [% improvement on each variable] - Their pricing: [paste] - Time horizon: [12, 24, 36 months] - Sensitivity variables: [which inputs we should flex] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide ROI deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline ROI number, (2) Baseline assumptions, (3) Our impact assumptions, (4) Calculation — month by month for first 12 months, (5) Cumulative ROI over 24 / 36 months, (6) Sensitivity analysis — what changes the ROI most, (7) Conservative / base / bullish scenarios, (8) Comparable customer's actual ROI realized, (9) Sign-off + next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 1 must show the headline ROI number prominently - Slide 4 must be transparent math — the CFO will pick at it - Slide 6 (sensitivity) is non-negotiable — every CFO asks "what if we don't get the X% improvement?" </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Heavy use of Markdown tables. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Late-stage deal. The buyer wants to see specific customer references with comparable use cases. I need a clean deck that profiles 3-5 customers and makes it easy to request a reference call. </context> <inputs> - 3-5 customer references most comparable to the buyer: [list with company, industry, size] - The use case each one solves for: [briefly] - The quantified outcome each one achieved: [paste] - Approved quote or testimonial from each: [paste] - Reference call availability: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide customer reference deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "Customer references for [buyer]", (2) How we picked these references (comparability criteria), (3-7) One slide per customer — company, use case, results, quote, reference call availability, (8) Common patterns across these customers, (9) How to request a reference call. </task> <constraints> - Each customer slide must include the quantified result, not just a quote - Slide 2 (selection criteria) builds trust — shows the references are matched, not cherry-picked - Slide 8 (common patterns) is the senior detail — turns 5 anecdotes into a thesis </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Customer slides in a structured format (Company / Use case / Result / Quote). Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We sell with a "land small, expand significantly" motion. The prospect needs to see how a small first purchase grows into a strategic expansion. </context> <inputs> - The "land" offering: [briefly — what they buy first] - Typical expansion path: [stages, time, dollars] - Top expansion drivers: [features, users, geographies] - Comparable customer expansion stories: [1-2] - Pricing model that supports expansion: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide land + expand deck. Slide order: (1) Title + thesis, (2) The land — what they buy first + why this size, (3) The 90-day proof window — what success looks like in the first 90 days, (4) Typical expansion path — visualized, (5) The expansion drivers — what triggers each expansion, (6) Comparable customer story — land to mature expansion, with dollars + timeline, (7) Pricing model that supports the path, (8) Why this beats a "buy big" alternative, (9) Recommended next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (90-day proof window) is the deck's most important slide — eliminates buyer fear of a big bet - Slide 6 must show actual dollar progression, not abstract "expanded significantly" - Slide 8 (why this beats buy-big) is the differentiating frame </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown table for the expansion path. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Enterprise/strategic-tier sale. Long cycle, multiple stakeholders, complex requirements. The deck needs to work for executives in 5 minutes AND survive technical depth in detailed sessions. </context> <inputs> - Buyer's company: [name + size + industry] - Stakeholder map: [list — economic buyer, champion, blocker, IT, procurement] - Their specific use case: [briefly] - Technical requirements they've shared: [briefly] - Customer stories most relevant: [list 2-3] </inputs> <task> Generate a 16-slide enterprise sales deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "[my company] x [their company]", (2) Their context (what we heard, signals respect for the work), (3) The 1-paragraph thesis, (4) Their use case mapped to our capability, (5) Architecture / technical depth, (6) Security + compliance (SOC2, GDPR, etc.), (7) Integration path, (8) Implementation plan — 30/60/90 day, (9) Customer story 1 (most analogous), (10) Customer story 2 (different angle), (11) Pricing + commercials, (12) Procurement + legal path, (13) Mutual success plan, (14) Risks + mitigations, (15) Decision criteria + timeline, (16) Recommended next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 6 (security/compliance) must address their specific environment, not generic - Slide 13 (mutual success plan) is the enterprise move — names what both sides commit to - Slide 14 (risks) earns trust by surfacing the buyer's likely concerns first </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for stakeholders, customer stories, mutual success metrics. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Mid-market sale — typically $25-200K ACV, 30-90 day cycle, 2-4 stakeholders. The deck needs to be punchy, customer-story heavy, and end with a clear close. </context> <inputs> - Buyer: [name + size + role] - Their pain: [briefly] - Our solution: [briefly] - Relevant customer stories: [list 2] - Pricing + timeline: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide mid-market sales deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-line value prop, (2) The pain we solve for [their persona], (3) How we solve it, (4) Demo / product walkthrough — 3 key surfaces, (5) Customer story 1 — same size + segment, (6) Customer story 2 — different angle, (7) Pricing + packaging, (8) Implementation timeline — 30/60/90 day, (9) FAQ / objection handling pre-empts, (10) Next step + signature path. </task> <constraints> - Slide 9 (FAQ) pre-empts the 3 most common mid-market objections (price, timing, internal buy-in) - Customer stories must include size + segment match — generic logos lose mid-market deals - Keep total deck under 10 slides — mid-market buyers won't read more </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> SMB / self-serve aided sale — under $25K ACV, often a single decision-maker, fast cycle. Deck is a closing aid for a single 30-minute call, not a multi-meeting artifact. </context> <inputs> - Buyer's role: [briefly] - Their typical use case: [briefly] - Pricing + free trial mechanics: [briefly] - Common SMB objections: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 7-slide SMB sales deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-line outcome, (2) The pain we solve in 3 bullets, (3) Demo / product in 3 key features, (4) Customer story — short, matched scale, (5) Pricing — flat + simple, (6) Free trial / onboarding mechanics, (7) Sign-up + first-step instructions. </task> <constraints> - Total deck under 7 slides — SMB attention spans demand it - Customer story must be SMB-matched, not enterprise - Slide 7 must include the literal first step they take to sign up </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes minimal — the deck should largely speak for itself. </format>

<context> The buyer is also evaluating [competitor]. I need a structured deck that helps them think through the differences — without trashing the competitor (which loses trust). </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [name] - Buyer's evaluation criteria: [list] - Where we genuinely win: [list] - Where they genuinely win: [list] - Where we tie or it's situational: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide competitive deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "Helping you evaluate", (2) The criteria you should evaluate on (anchored to their criteria), (3) Where [competitor] is genuinely strong, (4) Where we are genuinely strong, (5) Side-by-side table on the 8 most important criteria, (6) When [competitor] is the right choice, (7) When we are the right choice, (8) How to make the call. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (competitor strengths) must be specific and honest — buyers test for fairness - Slide 6 (when competitor is right) is the senior move — naming where you'd lose builds trust - Don't include adjectives in the comparison table — only facts </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown table for slide 5. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We're 60-90 days from a customer's renewal. They have expansion potential but it's not automatic. I need a deck that re-anchors on value delivered, demonstrates expansion ROI, and gets the conversation in motion. </context> <inputs> - Customer: [name + current spend + product mix] - Value delivered since last renewal: [paste — quantified] - Expansion opportunities: [briefly — additional users, modules, geographies] - Expansion ROI: [briefly] - Champion + economic buyer status: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide renewal + expansion deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "[customer] — year in review + what's next", (2) Year in review — value delivered, quantified, (3) Adoption metrics — what's healthy, what's not, (4) Open expansion opportunities, (5) ROI on the recommended expansion, (6) Comparable customers who expanded similarly, (7) Risks of staying static, (8) Implementation plan for expansion, (9) Pricing for the expansion, (10) Recommended next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 2 must be quantified, not generic "you got a lot out of us" - Slide 7 (risks of staying static) reframes the default option as also a risk - Slide 6 should be ONE comparable customer with real numbers </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown table for adoption metrics. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> A customer who churned 6-18 months ago. The reasons for churn have either changed (we've improved) or are now mitigated. I want to re-engage with a thoughtful deck that acknowledges what didn't work and shows what's changed. </context> <inputs> - Customer: [name + when they churned + why they churned] - What's changed about our product / service since then: [paste] - New use cases they didn't have when they were a customer: [list] - Current customers who came back after churning: [if any] </inputs> <task> Generate a 7-slide win-back deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "[customer] — what's changed since we last talked", (2) Acknowledgment of why it didn't work last time, (3) What we've shipped / changed since then, (4) Why we're reaching out now (not a generic check-in), (5) New use cases worth considering, (6) A win-back customer story (if available), (7) Recommended low-friction next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 2 (acknowledgment) is non-negotiable — without it the deck reads as if we're ignoring history - Slide 4 must give a specific reason for the timing, not generic - Next step (slide 7) should be low-friction — a call, not a contract </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> I'm building a deck specifically for [vertical, e.g., financial services, healthcare, manufacturing]. Generic decks lose at this stage — vertical-specific language and references are the table stakes. </context> <inputs> - Vertical: [name] - Buyer persona in this vertical: [role + responsibilities] - Vertical-specific pain points: [list] - Regulatory / compliance context: [briefly] - Vertical-specific customer stories: [list 2] - Vertical-specific competitors: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide vertical sales deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "[my company] for [vertical]", (2) Why we built specifically for [vertical], (3) The 3 pains we solve in [vertical], (4) How we solve them, (5) Compliance + regulatory posture, (6) Vertical-specific integrations, (7) Vertical-specific feature set, (8) Customer story 1, (9) Customer story 2, (10) Why we beat vertical-specific competitors, (11) Implementation + onboarding in [vertical] context, (12) Recommended next step. </task> <constraints> - Every slide must use vertical-specific language, not generic - Slide 5 (compliance) is critical for regulated verticals — generic "we're SOC2" loses - Customer stories must be from the same vertical </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> I'm pitching a channel or partner relationship — they sell our product to their customers. Different motion from direct sale — the deck needs to show how the partner makes money, not just how the end customer wins. </context> <inputs> - Partner type: [reseller, OEM, SI, agency, marketplace] - Their customer base + scale: [briefly] - Our partner program: [margin, support, training, marketing co-op] - Comparable partner stories: [if any] - The motion that will work for them: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide partner deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "[my company] x [partner type] partnership", (2) Why we're talking to you specifically, (3) Our product in 3 slides for their customers, (4) The market opportunity for them, (5) Economics — margin, deal size, deal velocity, (6) Support model — what we provide, (7) Co-marketing motion, (8) Training + enablement, (9) Comparable partner success story, (10) Recommended next step (typically a pilot program). </task> <constraints> - The deck must answer "how do I make money with this?" by slide 5 - Support model (slide 6) is the partner anxiety point — over-communicate - Co-marketing (slide 7) is differentiator — partners value air cover </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for economics and support. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> The deal is moving toward a pilot or proof-of-concept. I need a deck that scopes the pilot, sets success criteria, and gives the buyer confidence to commit. </context> <inputs> - Pilot use case: [briefly] - Duration: [weeks] - Success criteria: [briefly] - Resource commitment from both sides: [briefly] - Conversion path from pilot to full purchase: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide pilot proposal deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "[buyer] pilot proposal", (2) Goals of the pilot, (3) Scope — what's in, what's out, (4) Timeline — week-by-week milestones, (5) Success criteria — measurable, with thresholds, (6) Resource commitment from both sides, (7) Costs of the pilot, (8) What happens after the pilot — clear conversion path, (9) Sign-off + signature path. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (scope) must explicitly name what's OUT of scope — pilots fail when scope creeps - Slide 5 (success criteria) must be measurable with thresholds, not "improved performance" - Slide 8 must include both conversion AND non-conversion paths </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown table for timeline and success criteria. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> The champion has booked me into a 30-minute meeting with the C-suite executive sponsor (CFO, CTO, CRO, CEO). The deck is for a higher-altitude conversation — strategic, not tactical. </context> <inputs> - Executive: [role + their likely priorities] - The business case in dollars: [briefly] - The strategic fit: [briefly] - Comparable executive endorsements: [if any] - Risks the executive will probe: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 7-slide C-suite briefing deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence thesis, (2) The strategic context — why this matters to [their role specifically], (3) The opportunity in dollars + strategic outcome, (4) How we'd deliver, in 3 phases, (5) Comparable executive endorsement (if available) — quote + outcome, (6) Risks + how we'd manage them, (7) Decision points for [executive]'s consideration. </task> <constraints> - Total deck UNDER 8 slides — executives have 5-10 minutes to actually engage - Slide 2 must speak to THEIR role, not the company — CFOs care about different things than CEOs - Slide 7 should be decisions, not pitches </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes minimal — the slide content carries. </format>

<context> The technical evaluator at the buyer's organization wants a deep-dive. Architecture, security, scalability, extensibility. This deck is for engineers and IT leaders — not for executives. </context> <inputs> - Buyer's technical context: [stack, scale, integration needs, security requirements] - Our architecture overview: [briefly] - Specific technical concerns they've raised: [list] - Security + compliance status: [briefly] - Comparable technical deployments: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide technical deep-dive deck. Slide order: (1) Title, (2) High-level architecture, (3) Data model + storage, (4) API + integration surface, (5) Authentication + authorization model, (6) Security posture — SOC2, encryption, key management, (7) Scalability + performance characteristics, (8) Extensibility — what they can build on, (9) Comparable deployment at their scale, (10) Deployment options — cloud, on-prem, hybrid, (11) SLA + support model, (12) Technical Q&A pointer. </task> <constraints> - Architecture diagrams (slide 2) should be described in detail so they can be rendered - Slide 9 (comparable deployment) is the technical trust-builder - Avoid marketing language — engineers detect it instantly </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Use Mermaid syntax for architecture diagrams where applicable. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> The deal is closing but procurement / legal has its own review process. I need a deck that walks them through what they need (and helps them get it fast). </context> <inputs> - Standard contract terms: [briefly] - Common procurement concerns: [list — termination, liability, IP, SLA, security] - Documentation we provide: [SOC2, DPA, etc.] - Typical procurement timeline: [briefly] - Comparable procurement processes: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide procurement deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "Procurement + legal path", (2) Documentation available — what we'll send, (3) Standard contract terms — overview, (4) Areas of typical procurement concern — and how we handle them, (5) Security + compliance documentation, (6) Data processing addendum (DPA), (7) SLA + uptime commitments, (8) Standard timeline — what they should expect, (9) Procurement contact + escalation path. </task> <constraints> - This deck is for procurement, not for sales — language should be operational, not promotional - Slide 8 must show realistic timeline, not optimistic - Slide 9 (escalation path) is the trust move — procurement wants a name </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for documentation and timeline. Speaker notes minimal. </format>

<context> Internal-only deck. I'm preparing my own team for a hard negotiation with a key prospect. We need to align on our positions, walks-aways, and trade-offs before the meeting. </context> <inputs> - The deal: [briefly] - Our walk-away on price, terms, scope: [briefly] - Their likely position: [briefly] - Trade-offs we can make: [list] - Pressure on both sides: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide internal negotiation prep deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "[deal] negotiation prep", (2) Where we are vs. where we want to be, (3) Their likely position + what we know about their pressure, (4) Our walk-aways — price, terms, scope, (5) Trade-offs we're willing to make + what we want in return, (6) The 3 most likely sticking points + our response, (7) Authority levels — who can approve what, (8) Pre-call alignment + go/no-go checklist. </task> <constraints> - Internal-only deck — language is direct, not polished - Slide 4 (walk-aways) must be exact numbers, not ranges - Slide 7 (authority levels) prevents "let me check with my team" moments </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes minimal. </format>

<context> Internal sales QBR. The sales leader presents to the exec team or the CEO. Honest assessment of the quarter, what worked, what didn't, what's next. </context> <inputs> - Quarter results: [bookings, pipeline, win-rate, ACV, cycle time] - vs. plan: [paste] - Top reps + bottom reps: [briefly] - What worked + what didn't: [list] - Q+1 forecast + confidence: [paste] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide sales QBR deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Q results vs. plan, (3) Bookings detail — by segment, source, rep, (4) Pipeline coverage + health, (5) Win-rate by segment + trend, (6) Cycle time by stage + trend, (7) Top + bottom rep analysis, (8) What worked + what didn't this quarter, (9) Q+1 forecast + confidence, (10) Resourcing / hiring needs, (11) Asks for the exec team. </task> <constraints> - Be honest about underperformance — exec teams reward honest QBRs - Slide 7 (top + bottom reps) should be specific by name (internal only) - Slide 9 must include confidence level (high / medium / low) per forecast bucket </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables heavy. Speaker notes minimal. </format>

<context> The CEO or CFO is challenging the sales forecast. I need a deck that defends the forecast with deal-level detail, while being honest about where the risk is. </context> <inputs> - Forecast number: [paste] - Forecast confidence breakdown: [committed, upside, stretch] - Top 10 deals in the forecast: [briefly] - Risk-adjusted scenarios: [paste] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide forecast defense deck. Slide order: (1) Title + the forecast number, (2) How the forecast is constructed — committed + upside + stretch, (3) Top 10 deals in the forecast — risk-coded, (4) Coverage ratios — committed and upside vs. quota, (5) Historical forecast accuracy — last 4 quarters, (6) Risk-adjusted scenarios — base, downside, upside, (7) What changes the call — leading indicators we'd watch, (8) Asks for support to maximize hit, (9) Discussion. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 must risk-code every deal (green/yellow/red) — vague forecasts get torn apart - Slide 5 (historical accuracy) earns credibility BEFORE the current forecast - Slide 6 must include downside, not just upside </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for deals and scenarios. Speaker notes minimal. </format>

<context> Strategic account planning for a top-tier customer or prospect. The deck guides our team's engagement strategy for the next 12-18 months. </context> <inputs> - Account: [name + ACV + tenure if customer, or potential] - Our current state of relationship: [briefly] - The customer's strategic priorities: [briefly] - Our champions, blockers, and unknown stakeholders: [briefly] - Expansion or land opportunities: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide strategic account plan. Slide order: (1) Title — "[account] account plan", (2) Account overview + relationship state, (3) Their strategic priorities + how we map, (4) Stakeholder map — champions, blockers, unknown, (5) Current footprint + what they buy, (6) White space + expansion opportunities, (7) Land or expand plan — sequenced, (8) Engagement cadence — exec, peer, technical, (9) 90-day actions, (10) Risks to the account (churn, competitor, leadership change), (11) Resources needed, (12) Success metrics for the plan. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (stakeholder map) must include UNKNOWN stakeholders — what you don't know is the risk - Slide 10 (risks) must include leadership change at the customer - Slide 12 should be measurable account-specific metrics, not generic </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for stakeholder map and engagement cadence. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We've done win-loss interviews with [N] customers or prospects from the last 6 months. I need a deck that synthesizes patterns and proposes changes to our sales motion. </context> <inputs> - Interviews completed: [number, methodology] - Patterns in wins: [list] - Patterns in losses: [list] - Common surprises: [list] - Proposed changes to motion: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide win-loss analysis deck. Slide order: (1) Title + methodology, (2) Headline patterns, (3) Why we win — top 3 reasons by frequency, (4) Why we lose — top 3 reasons by frequency, (5) Direct quotes — anonymized, (6) Pattern by segment / size / vertical, (7) Surprises — what we didn't expect, (8) Proposed changes to sales motion, (9) Proposed changes to product / pricing, (10) Owner + timeline for each change. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (quotes) must be anonymized but specific - Slide 7 (surprises) is the gold — patterns we didn't see coming - Slide 10 must have explicit owners — analysis without ownership is wasted </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> A new senior AE is joining. I need an onboarding / ramp plan deck — 30/60/90 day expectations, training, account assignments, ramp quota. </context> <inputs> - New AE: [name + background] - Their assigned territory + accounts: [briefly] - Ramp quota schedule: [paste] - Training curriculum: [briefly] - Mentor / buddy assignments: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide AE ramp plan. Slide order: (1) Title — "[AE name] 30/60/90 ramp plan", (2) Welcome + alignment, (3) Day 1-30 — onboarding + training milestones, (4) Day 31-60 — first-call milestones + account familiarity, (5) Day 61-90 — first-close target + pipeline expectations, (6) Ramp quota schedule, (7) Mentor + buddy + escalation contacts, (8) Tools + access checklist, (9) 30 / 60 / 90 day check-in cadence. </task> <constraints> - Day-by-day milestones should be specific, not "complete training" - Ramp quota schedule must show monthly targets, not just full-quota date - Slide 9 (check-in cadence) is the manager's accountability mechanism </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for milestones and quota. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Annual or quarterly sales playbook refresh. The current playbook isn't matching what's actually winning deals. I need to surface what's changed and propose updates. </context> <inputs> - Current playbook key plays: [list] - What's working better than expected: [briefly] - What's losing efficacy: [briefly] - New plays we've seen reps run successfully: [briefly] - Proposed updates to playbook: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide playbook refresh deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Why we're refreshing — what we've learned, (3) What's working better than expected + why, (4) What's losing efficacy + why, (5) New plays + early evidence, (6) Proposed updates — adds, removes, modifies, (7) Training plan to roll out updates, (8) Enablement + content updates needed, (9) Owner + timeline. </task> <constraints> - Be honest about what's losing efficacy — old plays die slowly without honest review - Slide 5 (new plays) must have early evidence, not just assertion - Slide 6 (proposed updates) should distinguish add vs. remove vs. modify </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly pipeline generation review. We're either under-covered or losing top-of-funnel volume. Need to align sales + marketing on what's actually generating qualified pipeline. </context> <inputs> - Pipeline coverage ratio: [current vs. needed] - Source mix: [inbound, outbound, partner, marketing-sourced] - Conversion rates by source: [paste] - ICP-fit rates by source: [paste] - Proposed shifts in PG investment: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide PG deck. Slide order: (1) Title + coverage state, (2) Pipeline coverage detail, (3) Source mix vs. last quarter, (4) Conversion rates by source, (5) ICP-fit rates by source, (6) Quality issues — meetings that don't progress, (7) Top of funnel: what's working, what's not, (8) Proposed shifts — adds, cuts, holds, (9) Resourcing implications, (10) Asks of marketing / partners / leadership. </task> <constraints> - ICP-fit rates (slide 5) are the truth-teller — volume without fit is wasted activity - Slide 6 (quality issues) is the differentiating slide — most PG decks measure volume only - Slide 10 must name asks of specific functions </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for source mix and conversion. Speaker notes minimal. </format>

<context> I'm raising a seed round. Need a deck that earns the second meeting in 5 minutes. Tight, specific, no fluff. </context> <inputs> - Company: [name + 1-sentence what] - Problem: [briefly] - Solution + product: [briefly] - Traction so far: [paste — users, revenue, design partners, waitlist] - Team: [paste — founders + key hires + relevant background] - Market: [TAM / SAM / SOM with sources] - Raise: [amount + use of funds] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide seed pitch deck. Slide order: (1) Title — company + 1-sentence what, (2) Problem — specific, named, costly, (3) Solution — what we built + how it's different, (4) Why now — the market shift that makes this inevitable, (5) Product — 2-3 key screens or features, (6) Traction — every quantifiable signal we have, (7) Business model — pricing + unit economics, (8) Market — TAM / SAM / SOM with sources, (9) Competition + how we win, (10) Team — why we're the right founders, (11) Raise — amount, use of funds, milestones, (12) Vision — what this becomes if it works. </task> <constraints> - No filler slides - Slide 4 (why now) is the difference between getting funded and not — earn it - Slide 6 (traction) must show every quantifiable signal, even small - Slide 11 must show specific milestones the round funds, not generic </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics, with the typical question this slide raises. </format>

<context> Series A raise. We have product-market fit signals and revenue. The deck needs to show repeatable motion + capital efficiency, not just the vision. </context> <inputs> - Company: [name] - ARR + growth rate: [paste] - Cohort retention: [paste] - Acquisition efficiency: [CAC, payback, magic number] - Team: [paste] - Market + go-to-market motion: [briefly] - Raise: [amount + use] </inputs> <task> Generate a 14-slide Series A deck. Slide order: (1) Title, (2) Headline — ARR + growth, (3) The problem (concise — Series A investors know the problem space), (4) Our solution + product, (5) Traction — ARR growth trajectory, (6) Cohort retention — by vintage, (7) Acquisition efficiency — CAC, payback, magic number, (8) GTM motion — how we acquire, repeatably, (9) Market + how we'll expand, (10) Competition + moat, (11) Team + recent hires, (12) Raise — amount, use, milestones to Series B, (13) Path to scale + capital plan, (14) Vision. </task> <constraints> - Slide 6 (cohort retention) and slide 7 (CAC efficiency) are the deck — Series A investors care most about these two slides - Slide 8 (GTM motion) must show how it's REPEATABLE, not just that it works - Milestones to next round (slide 12) must be specific and achievable </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for cohort retention and CAC. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Series B or later. We have repeatable revenue motion. The raise is about scale — geographic expansion, new products, market category expansion, M&A. The deck needs to show the next chapter. </context> <inputs> - ARR + growth rate: [paste] - Net revenue retention: [paste] - Capital efficiency to date: [briefly] - Strategic next chapters: [briefly] - Use of funds: [briefly] - Comparable companies at this stage: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 16-slide Series B+ deck. Slide order: (1) Title — ARR + growth, (2) Headline metrics — ARR, growth, NRR, magic number, (3) The current state — what we've built, (4) Traction — multi-year trajectory, (5) Cohort behavior + NRR, (6) Unit economics + capital efficiency, (7) Why this is a category, not a feature, (8) Market sizing + share, (9) Competitive moat — sustainable advantages, (10) Next chapter — what we'll do with this round, (11) Geographic / segment / product expansion plan, (12) Team + recent senior hires, (13) Capital plan — runway, milestones, next round, (14) Risk + how we manage it, (15) Vision — IPO or major outcome thesis, (16) The ask. </task> <constraints> - Slide 7 (category not feature) is the Series B+ make-or-break — investors at this stage are betting on category creation - Slide 9 (moat) must name SUSTAINABLE advantages, not generic - Slide 13 (capital plan) must include path to next round AND path to break-even </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables heavy. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Raising a bridge or extension round (between primary rounds). Lower-stakes pitch — usually existing investors or a top-up from new ones. Need to be honest about what's changed. </context> <inputs> - What's happened since last round: [paste] - Current burn + runway: [paste] - Why we need bridge: [briefly] - Updated milestones to next priced round: [briefly] - Terms being discussed: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide bridge deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "Bridge round update", (2) What's changed since last round, (3) Where we are now, (4) Why bridge vs. priced round, (5) Use of bridge funds, (6) Milestones to next priced round, (7) Forecasted next-round terms, (8) Risks + plan if things slip, (9) The ask. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 must honestly explain why bridge — not "we're killing it" - Slide 6 (milestones) must be specific and time-bound - Slide 8 (risks if things slip) is the trust-building slide — pre-empts investor concern </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Pre-seed raise. Very early — possibly pre-product. Investors are betting on team + market + insight. </context> <inputs> - Founders + their relevant unfair advantage: [briefly] - The insight — what we believe that others don't: [briefly] - The market opportunity: [briefly] - The product hypothesis: [briefly] - Early signals — design partners, waitlist, manual MVP: [briefly] - Raise: [amount + 12-18 month plan] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide pre-seed deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence what, (2) The insight — what we believe, (3) Why we believe it (founder unfair advantage), (4) The market we're entering, (5) The product hypothesis, (6) Early signals (manual / waitlist / partners), (7) Why now, (8) Team, (9) Raise + first 18 months, (10) Vision. </task> <constraints> - Slide 2 (insight) is the most important slide — pre-seed is bet on insight - Slide 3 must show authentic founder advantage, not generic "we have experience" - Slide 6 must show real early signal, even if manual </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly or biannual update deck for existing investors. They want to know how we're progressing toward the next round and what they can do to help. </context> <inputs> - Period: [Q + Y] - Top-line metrics: [paste] - Wins of the period: [list] - Losses + challenges: [list] - Path to next round: [briefly] - Asks of investors: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide investor update deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence headline, (2) Top-line metrics + trend, (3) Wins of the period, (4) Losses + what we learned, (5) Customer / market signals, (6) Team updates, (7) Burn + runway, (8) Path to next round, (9) Specific asks of investors, (10) What we'd do differently, (11) Q&A pointer. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (losses) is non-negotiable — investors trust founders who name losses - Slide 9 (asks) must be specific — "intro to X type of customer", "feedback on Y", not generic - Slide 10 (what we'd do differently) signals founder learning </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for metrics. Speaker notes brief. </format>

<context> Monthly founder note to investors — usually accompanies a metrics dashboard. Short, honest, specific. Slide format but more narrative than typical pitch. </context> <inputs> - Month: [month + year] - Top-line metrics: [paste] - 2-3 narrative paragraphs about what happened: [briefly] - Asks of investors: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 5-slide monthly founder note. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence summary, (2) Metrics dashboard, (3) Narrative — what happened, what we're learning, (4) Asks of investors, (5) Forward look for next month. </task> <constraints> - Total length under 5 slides — investors read founder notes on phones - Slide 3 (narrative) should be 2-3 short paragraphs, written like prose - Asks (slide 4) should be 1-3 specific items, not generic </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Prose for slide 3. Speaker notes minimal. </format>

<context> Pitching a strategic investor or corporate venture arm. Different from financial VCs — strategics evaluate fit with their portfolio + their parent company's strategy. </context> <inputs> - Strategic: [name + their portfolio + parent company strategy] - The strategic fit thesis: [briefly] - The financial case: [briefly] - Customer / partner overlap: [briefly] - Our standalone trajectory: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide strategic pitch deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence thesis, (2) Why we're talking to YOU specifically, (3) Our company + standalone case, (4) Financial trajectory + raise, (5) Strategic fit — where we align with your strategy, (6) Customer overlap + commercial opportunity, (7) Partnership / channel possibilities, (8) Risks of strategic relationship (we're honest), (9) Comparable strategic investments + outcomes, (10) Proposed terms + governance, (11) Recommended next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 2 must be customized to THEIR strategy, not generic strategic-investor pitch - Slide 8 (risks of strategic relationship) builds trust by surfacing the elephant - Strategic terms (slide 10) should propose lighter governance to reduce risk </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Pitching angel investors — typically 30-minute conversation, less formal than VC, often check sizes $25-250K. Need a compact, conversational deck. </context> <inputs> - Company + what we do: [briefly] - Founders: [briefly] - Traction: [briefly] - Round structure: [SAFE, priced, terms] - Ask: [amount and what we need from them] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide angel pitch. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-line what, (2) The problem + the insight, (3) Our solution + early signal, (4) Team + why us, (5) Market + why now, (6) Round structure + use of funds, (7) Why I'm asking you specifically (not generic), (8) Next steps. </task> <constraints> - Total length under 8 slides — angels make decisions fast - Slide 7 (why you specifically) is the angel signal — generic decks lose - Round structure (slide 6) should be founder-friendly + simple (SAFE preferred at this stage) </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes brief. </format>

<context> We need to raise but the market or our metrics won't support our last valuation. We're considering a down round, recap, or restructure. Tough conversation with the board + existing investors. </context> <inputs> - Current state — why we're here: [briefly] - Options we're considering: [briefly — down round, recap, bridge, distress sale] - Recommended path: [briefly] - Impact on existing investors + employees: [briefly] - Implementation plan: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide down-round / recap deck. Slide order: (1) Title + framing — "Where we are, what we're proposing", (2) What's changed since last round, (3) Where we are now — honest, (4) Options considered + trade-offs, (5) Recommended path + why, (6) Impact on existing investors, (7) Impact on employees + option pool, (8) Going-forward plan post-recap, (9) Risks + alternative if we don't act, (10) Decisions needed from the board. </task> <constraints> - Be honest, not defensive — investors smell defensiveness - Slide 4 (options) must show real alternatives, not strawmen - Slide 9 (alternative if we don't act) is the senior framing — makes the recap the safer choice </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We're going to market for a potential acquisition. The deck needs to attract serious strategic + financial acquirers — without pre-leaking that we're selling. </context> <inputs> - Company description + product: [briefly] - Customers + revenue: [briefly] - Team: [briefly] - Strategic value to specific acquirer types: [briefly] - Why now: [briefly] - Headline financials: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 14-slide acquisition target deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence pitch, (2) The company + product, (3) The market + position, (4) Customers + revenue detail, (5) Cohort retention + NRR, (6) Unit economics, (7) Team + leadership, (8) Strategic fit options — categories of acquirers we map to, (9) Synergy thesis — generic (we don't know yet), (10) Customer / IP / data assets, (11) Why now — for us and for the market, (12) Process + timeline, (13) Materials + diligence room, (14) Recommended next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 8 (strategic fit categories) is non-negotiable — different acquirers care about different things - Slide 11 (why now) should signal urgency without desperation - Slide 12 (process) should signal we're running a process, not a 1-on-1 conversation </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables heavy. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Pitching family offices or LP investors — patient capital with different evaluation criteria than VCs. Often values capital preservation + steady growth over hyper-growth. </context> <inputs> - Company + business model: [briefly] - Financial profile: [revenue, growth, margin, cash flow] - Patient capital fit: [briefly] - Recent traction + customer signals: [briefly] - Round terms: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 11-slide family office pitch. Slide order: (1) Title + thesis, (2) Business overview, (3) Financial profile — revenue, margin, cash flow, (4) Capital efficiency to date, (5) Why this fits patient capital, (6) Market position + durability, (7) Risks + how we manage them, (8) Team + governance, (9) Return profile — modeled, (10) Round structure + terms, (11) Recommended next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (patient capital fit) is non-negotiable — generic VC pitches lose family offices - Slide 9 (return profile) should be modeled conservatively — patient capital wants steady, not moonshot - Slide 7 (risks) is more important than for VC — family offices are loss-averse </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for financials and return profile. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Running a crowdfunding campaign (Republic, WeFunder, equity crowdfunding). Deck is part of the public-facing campaign — different from VC pitch. </context> <inputs> - Product + traction: [briefly] - Customer story / community angle: [briefly] - Crowdfunding goal + minimum: [briefly] - Perks / rewards (if applicable): [briefly] - Founder story / community fit: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide crowdfunding deck. Slide order: (1) Title + community-friendly tagline, (2) The product — visual + accessible, (3) The story — why we exist, (4) Traction + customer love, (5) Founder story, (6) The community angle — why people should care, (7) Use of crowdfunded capital, (8) Investment terms + perks, (9) How to invest. </task> <constraints> - Language should be community-facing, not VC-facing - Slide 6 (community angle) is the crowdfunding differentiator — generic decks lose - Slide 8 (terms) must be ultra-clear for non-professional investors </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes minimal — the deck speaks publicly. </format>

<context> Comprehensive update for existing investors after a major event — round close, key hire, product launch, customer win. Not the regular update. </context> <inputs> - The event: [briefly] - Impact on the business: [briefly] - What's changed in our plan: [briefly] - Investor implications: [briefly] - Forward-looking commitments: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide event-driven investor update. Slide order: (1) Title — "Major update: [event]", (2) The event in 1 sentence + 3 bullets, (3) Impact on the business — financial + strategic, (4) What changes in our plan, (5) What stays the same, (6) Investor implications (dilution, ownership, governance), (7) Forward-looking commitments, (8) Q&A pointer + next update timing. </task> <constraints> - Be specific about implications — investors hate ambiguity - Slide 5 (what stays the same) reassures — change without continuity unsettles investors - Slide 7 (commitments) must be specific and time-bound </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Raising in a difficult market — recession, bear cycle, sector out of favor. The deck needs to address market conditions directly, not pretend they don't exist. </context> <inputs> - Company + traction: [briefly] - Market conditions: [briefly] - Why we're resilient: [briefly] - Capital efficiency: [briefly] - Round structure (capital-efficient): [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide difficult-market pitch deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence thesis, (2) Why we're raising in this market — confident framing, (3) The problem we solve (recession-resilient if true), (4) Our solution + product, (5) Traction in the current environment, (6) Cohort behavior in down-cycle, (7) Capital efficiency vs. comps, (8) Path to break-even, (9) Team — and why we're stress-tested, (10) Round structure — smaller, capital-efficient, (11) Use of funds — runway extension + efficient growth, (12) Why now and why us. </task> <constraints> - Slide 2 must acknowledge market conditions directly — pretending earns no trust - Slide 8 (path to break-even) is non-negotiable in a difficult market - Slide 10 should signal capital efficiency, not maximum capital </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for cohort behavior and efficiency. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Pitching an AI company in 2026. Investors are over-saturated with AI pitches. The deck needs to differentiate on real differentiation — data, distribution, defensibility — not "we built an LLM wrapper." </context> <inputs> - Company + AI thesis: [briefly] - Specific differentiation: [data, distribution, model, fine-tuning, workflow] - Customer traction + retention: [briefly] - Defensibility vs. foundation model providers: [briefly] - Cost structure of AI: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 14-slide AI company pitch deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence what, (2) The problem and the AI-specific opportunity, (3) Why now — the model / data / cost shift, (4) Our solution + product, (5) Real differentiation — what we built that's hard to copy, (6) Customer traction + retention (matters more in AI than features), (7) Defensibility vs. foundation models, (8) Defensibility vs. fast followers, (9) Cost structure — gross margin, inference cost, (10) GTM motion + acquisition efficiency, (11) Team, (12) Market + landscape, (13) Round + use of funds, (14) Vision. </task> <constraints> - Slide 7 (defensibility vs. foundation models) is the make-or-break — every AI investor asks - Slide 9 (cost structure) is critical — AI companies often have hidden margin issues - Avoid AI hype language — investors are over-saturated; specific outcomes win </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for traction, retention, and cost structure. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We have hard news to share with investors — a missed quarter, a key departure, a customer loss, a regulatory issue. The deck needs to be honest, not spin. </context> <inputs> - The hard news: [briefly] - Impact on the business: [briefly] - What we're doing about it: [briefly] - What we'd do differently: [briefly] - Forward-looking plan: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 7-slide hard-news investor deck. Slide order: (1) Title — direct, not euphemistic, (2) What happened — 2 sentences, no spin, (3) Impact on the business, (4) What we're doing about it now, (5) What we'd do differently in hindsight, (6) Forward-looking plan, (7) Asks of investors. </task> <constraints> - Total length under 7 slides — long hard-news decks read as defensive - Slide 2 must name the news directly — euphemisms lose more trust than the news itself - Slide 5 (what we'd do differently) is the trust-rebuilding slide — show learning </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Prose, not bullets, for sensitive slides. Speaker notes brief. </format>

<context> Raising on a SAFE or convertible note (early-stage, no priced round). Deck needs to support the structure without overselling. </context> <inputs> - Company + product: [briefly] - Traction: [briefly] - SAFE / note terms: [valuation cap, discount, MFN] - Why SAFE vs. priced: [briefly] - Use of funds: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide SAFE pitch deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence what, (2) Problem + solution, (3) Traction, (4) Team, (5) Market + opportunity, (6) Why we're raising on SAFE (vs. priced), (7) SAFE terms — cap, discount, MFN, (8) Use of funds + milestones, (9) Recommended next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 6 must explain the SAFE rationale — most investors prefer priced, so this is the trust slide - Slide 7 should be transparent on terms — clean SAFE terms close faster - Use of funds (slide 8) must connect to specific milestones that justify the next round </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Internal-only prep deck for the investor pitch. Anticipates every question that will be asked + the best answer. Not the deck I show — the deck I rehearse from. </context> <inputs> - The pitch deck I'm using: [briefly] - Top 20 likely investor questions: [list] - Known weak points in the story: [list] - Comparable company stories investors will reference: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide investor Q&A prep deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "Investor Q&A prep — internal", (2) Top 5 likely questions — with my best answer for each, (3) Top 5 likely follow-up probes — with my response, (4) Hard questions I might dodge — and how I'll handle them, (5) Pricing / valuation pushback responses, (6) Competitor questions — for each top comp, (7) Team / hiring questions, (8) Capital efficiency / runway questions, (9) Market sizing pushback, (10) Customer / churn questions, (11) The one question I'm worried about — and my honest answer, (12) Closing strength — the line I want to leave them with. </task> <constraints> - Internal only — language is direct - Slide 4 (hard questions I might dodge) is the most important — pre-empt the dodge - Slide 11 (one question I'm worried about) is the rehearsal slide that prevents the freeze </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Q + A format throughout. Speaker notes minimal. </format>

<context> Compressed one-pager investor pitch (for cold outreach, intro forwards, conference handouts). Single page, dense, designed to earn the first meeting. </context> <inputs> - Company + 1-sentence what: [briefly] - Top metric + traction: [briefly] - Team: [briefly] - Market + opportunity: [briefly] - Round + terms: [briefly] - Why now: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 1-slide investor one-pager. Format as a single dense Markdown page with these sections: Headline, Company description (2 sentences), Traction (3 key numbers), Team (1 line each), Market opportunity (1 paragraph), Round + terms (1 paragraph), Why now (2 sentences), Why this team (2 sentences), Contact + meeting CTA. </task> <constraints> - Single page only — investors decide in 60 seconds whether to take the meeting - Every metric must be a real number, not a range - The headline + first sentence are the entire game — earn them </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact, single page. Use Markdown headings + tight paragraphs. </format>

<context> I have a long-form PRD that needs to become a presentation for an exec review. The PRD content is solid — I just need it restructured into deck format that respects exec attention span. </context> <inputs> - PRD content: [paste the full PRD] - Audience: [exec team / product council / staff PMs] - Decision needed: [what we're asking the room to approve] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide PRD-to-deck conversion. Slide order: (1) Title + decision needed up front, (2) Problem we're solving + who, (3) Why now, (4) The proposed solution in 1 paragraph, (5) Key user flows visualized in description, (6) Success metrics — leading + lagging, (7) Trade-offs we made + alternatives we considered, (8) Risks + open questions, (9) Resourcing + timeline, (10) Decision points. </task> <constraints> - Slide 7 (trade-offs + alternatives) is the senior product signal - Slide 8 must include open questions, not just risks - Slide 1 (decision needed) leads — execs read decision-first </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly roadmap review for the product team + adjacent leaders. What shipped, what slipped, what's next, what we're killing. </context> <inputs> - Quarter: [Q + Y] - Roadmap items committed: [paste] - What shipped: [paste] - What slipped + why: [paste] - Next quarter commitments: [paste] - Items we're killing or deferring: [paste] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide quarterly roadmap deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) What we committed to last quarter, (3) What shipped, (4) What slipped + honest reasons, (5) What we killed (and why), (6) Customer signals + traction from shipped items, (7) Learnings to apply forward, (8) Next quarter commitments, (9) Resourcing implications, (10) Risks + dependencies, (11) Asks for the broader team. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (slips) must name actual reasons, not platitudes - Slide 5 (kills) is the senior signal — naming what we stopped doing builds trust - Slide 7 (learnings) must be specific structural changes, not "we'll plan better" </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for commitments and shipped items. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Major product launch in 30-60 days. Readiness review across product, engineering, marketing, sales, support, customer success. Surface what's on track, what's at risk, what's red. </context> <inputs> - Launch product + date: [paste] - Readiness by function: [product, eng, marketing, sales, support, CS] - Outstanding risks per function: [list] - Launch metrics + success criteria: [paste] - Customer-facing communications status: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide launch readiness deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline status, (2) Readiness scorecard by function — green/yellow/red, (3) Product readiness — feature completeness, polish, edge cases, (4) Engineering readiness — perf, reliability, observability, (5) Marketing readiness — positioning, content, comms, (6) Sales readiness — enablement, pricing, comp model, (7) Support + CS readiness — playbooks, escalation, FAQ, (8) Customer-facing comms plan, (9) Launch metrics + success criteria, (10) Top 5 risks + mitigations, (11) Go / no-go criteria, (12) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Slide 2 uses traffic-light scorecard - Go/no-go criteria (slide 11) must be objective, not "we feel ready" - Risk slide (10) must include mitigations, not just risks </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown scorecard table. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Annual product strategy presentation to the company or exec team. Sets the direction, the bets, what we're optimizing for, what we're explicitly not doing. </context> <inputs> - Vision (1-2 sentence anchoring): [paste] - Last year accomplishments + learnings: [briefly] - Strategic bets for the year: [list] - What we're NOT doing: [list] - Resourcing + team shape: [briefly] - Success metrics: [paste] </inputs> <task> Generate a 13-slide annual product strategy deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence vision, (2) Where we are — last year recap, (3) What we learned that changed our priors, (4) The mission this year — 1 paragraph, (5) Strategic bet 1 — what + why + who, (6) Strategic bet 2, (7) Strategic bet 3, (8) What we're explicitly NOT doing, (9) Team + resourcing implications, (10) Operating cadence — how we'll review, (11) Success metrics — leading + lagging, (12) Risks + how we'd recalibrate, (13) Closing thesis. </task> <constraints> - Slide 8 (what we're NOT doing) is the most important slide - Each bet (slides 5-7) must name an OWNER, not just an area - Slide 12 (recalibration triggers) is the senior signal — pre-commit to decision points </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. Use prose for slides 4 and 13. </format>

<context> We just completed a 4-6 week product discovery sprint — user interviews, jobs-to-be-done research, prototype testing. Need to present findings to stakeholders and propose next steps. </context> <inputs> - Discovery question: [paste] - Methodology + sample size: [paste] - Key findings: [list] - Surprises: [list] - Implications for product strategy: [briefly] - Recommended next steps: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide discovery findings deck. Slide order: (1) Title + the question we set out to answer, (2) Methodology + sample, (3) Headline findings — 3 bullets, (4) Finding 1 — detail + supporting evidence, (5) Finding 2 — detail + evidence, (6) Finding 3 — detail + evidence, (7) Surprises — what we didn't expect, (8) Implications for product strategy, (9) Recommended next steps, (10) Open questions. </task> <constraints> - Slide 7 (surprises) is the gold of any discovery — they're what change strategy - Each finding (4-6) must include supporting evidence, not just assertion - Slide 10 (open questions) signals discovery muscle — knowing what we still don't know </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. Include direct quotes (anonymized) where helpful. </format>

<context> Feature spec review with engineering + design + PM stakeholders before committing to build. Surfaces ambiguity, tradeoffs, and decisions still needed. </context> <inputs> - Feature: [name + 1-sentence what] - User problem + success criteria: [paste] - Proposed solution: [paste] - Edge cases identified: [list] - Decisions still needed: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide feature spec review deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence what, (2) User problem + jobs to be done, (3) Success criteria — measurable, (4) Proposed solution overview, (5) Key user flows, (6) Edge cases + how we'll handle each, (7) Decisions still needed, (8) Resourcing + timeline estimate, (9) Open questions. </task> <constraints> - Slide 6 (edge cases) must list 5+ — features that look "done" without edge case enumeration ship broken - Slide 7 (decisions still needed) is the senior signal — surfaces ambiguity before commit - Slide 9 must have actual unknowns, not just "polish details" </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Monthly or quarterly experimentation review — what we tested, what won, what lost, what we're learning about our hypothesis space. </context> <inputs> - Period: [paste] - Experiments run: [list with hypothesis, design, result] - Winners + losers: [paste] - Hypothesis space learnings: [briefly] - Forward experiment pipeline: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide experimentation review deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline learning, (2) Experiments completed — table, (3) Winners — and the underlying hypothesis that won, (4) Losers — and what the negative result tells us, (5) Surprises — the experiments that taught more than expected, (6) Hypothesis space evolution — what we now believe, (7) Experiment quality — sample size, statistical power, run-time, (8) Forward experiment pipeline, (9) Methodology improvements we're making, (10) Asks for the team. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (losers) is the senior signal — naming the hypothesis behind each negative result - Slide 7 (quality) prevents the team from rationalizing weak results - Slide 6 (hypothesis evolution) is what experimentation is actually FOR </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown experiment table. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We're sunsetting a feature. Internal deck to align stakeholders + plan the deprecation communication. </context> <inputs> - Feature being sunset: [paste] - Why sunset (data + strategic): [briefly] - Affected customers + scale: [paste] - Migration path (if any): [paste] - Communication plan: [briefly] - Timeline: [paste] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide sunset deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline decision, (2) Why we're sunsetting — data + strategic, (3) Who's affected + at what scale, (4) Customer migration path, (5) Communication plan + timing, (6) Edge cases — customers without a migration path, (7) Internal team impact — sales, support, CS, (8) Risk + churn estimate, (9) Decision points + open questions. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (migration path) is non-negotiable — sunsets without paths produce churn - Slide 6 (customers without a path) earns trust — name them, don't pretend they don't exist - Slide 8 must include realistic churn estimate, not optimistic </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Post-mortem on a product initiative — could be a launch, an experiment, a feature, a strategic bet. Honest analysis, structural learnings. </context> <inputs> - Initiative: [paste] - What we set out to do: [paste] - What actually happened: [paste] - Root causes (your best read): [paste] - Learnings + changes to ways of working: [paste] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide product post-mortem deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence summary, (2) What we set out to do, (3) What actually happened, (4) Root causes — 3 levels deep, (5) Decisions we'd make differently, (6) Structural changes we're making, (7) What we'd keep doing, (8) Learnings that transfer to other initiatives, (9) Discussion + open items. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 must go 3 levels deep, not stop at the surface cause - Slide 6 (structural changes) is the senior signal — what STAYS changed - Slide 7 (what we'd keep) prevents the post-mortem from being all negative </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Prose for slides 4-6. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Engineering capacity review — quarterly or per planning cycle. How is engineering capacity being spent vs. plan? What's bloating, what's underfunded? </context> <inputs> - Engineering team composition: [paste] - Capacity allocation by category: [features, platform, tech debt, incidents, ops] - Plan vs. actual allocation: [paste] - Velocity trends: [paste] - Hiring pipeline: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide engineering capacity deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Team composition + total capacity, (3) Allocation pie — features, platform, tech debt, incidents, ops, (4) Plan vs. actual allocation, (5) Velocity trend — last 4 quarters, (6) Where capacity is leaking (incidents, meetings, context switching), (7) Bottleneck analysis — which sub-teams are over/under-funded, (8) Hiring pipeline + ramp impact, (9) Proposed allocation shifts, (10) Asks for the broader leadership team. </task> <constraints> - Slide 6 (capacity leaks) is the senior eng signal — most decks ignore the leak - Slide 7 must be specific by sub-team, not generic - Slide 9 must propose concrete allocation shifts with % </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown allocation tables. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Annual product org health review — team, ways of working, planning cadence, decision velocity, morale. </context> <inputs> - Team size + composition by role: [paste] - Recent hires + departures: [briefly] - Planning cadence + retrospective findings: [briefly] - Decision velocity audit: [briefly] - eNPS + morale signals: [paste] - Top 3 health risks: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide product org health deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Team composition + capacity, (3) Hires + departures last year, (4) Planning cadence — what works, what doesn't, (5) Decision velocity — average time from idea to ship, (6) Cross-functional partnerships — eng, design, sales, marketing health, (7) Morale + eNPS, (8) Top 3 health risks, (9) Proposed changes for next year, (10) Discussion. </task> <constraints> - Decision velocity (slide 5) is the senior product signal — measure it - Slide 6 (cross-functional health) is what most product-org reviews skip - Slide 8 must be specific risks, not generic </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly OKR planning for the product team. Sets objectives + key results for the next quarter, retrospectives last quarter's, and aligns with company priorities. </context> <inputs> - Company priorities for the quarter: [paste] - Last quarter OKRs + results: [paste] - Proposed OKRs for next quarter: [paste] - Resourcing implications: [briefly] - Risks + dependencies: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide OKR planning deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Company priorities recap, (3) Last quarter OKRs — scored, (4) Last quarter learnings — what worked, what didn't, (5) Proposed objectives — 3-5 max, (6) Proposed key results — measurable per objective, (7) How OKRs ladder to company priorities, (8) Resourcing + bandwidth check, (9) Risks + dependencies, (10) Approval + next steps. </task> <constraints> - Max 5 objectives — more is a wish list - Each KR (slide 6) must be measurable with a target number - Slide 3 must score honestly — sandbagged OKRs (everyone scored 90%) lose investor and exec trust </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for OKRs and scoring. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> I'm pitching a new product concept to the exec team — could become a new line, a major feature investment, or a new business unit. Need to make the case at concept stage. </context> <inputs> - Product concept: [paste] - Customer problem + evidence: [paste] - Market size estimate: [paste] - Strategic fit with our current business: [briefly] - Required investment: [briefly] - Validation plan: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide new product concept deck. Slide order: (1) Title + concept in 1 sentence, (2) The customer problem + evidence, (3) Our concept solution, (4) Why us specifically — unfair advantage, (5) Market size + timing, (6) Strategic fit with current business, (7) Required investment — phase 1, (8) Validation plan — what we'd test before committing, (9) Risks + how we'd kill the concept, (10) Comparable concepts at other companies — successes + failures, (11) Recommended next step. </task> <constraints> - Slide 8 (validation plan) is the senior signal — pre-commit to testing before scaling - Slide 9 (kill criteria) is non-negotiable — concepts without kill criteria become zombie projects - Slide 10 must include FAILURES not just successes — gives credibility </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Strategic deck for an API or developer-facing product. Different from end-user products — adoption, ecosystem, developer experience matter more than UI. </context> <inputs> - Developer product: [paste] - Target developer persona: [paste] - Developer adoption metrics: [signups, weekly active, time-to-first-call, time-to-value] - Ecosystem state: [briefly] - Strategic bets for next 12 months: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide developer product strategy deck. Slide order: (1) Title + strategic thesis, (2) Developer persona + jobs to be done, (3) Adoption funnel — signup to active, (4) Time-to-first-call + time-to-value — current state, (5) Documentation + DX quality assessment, (6) Ecosystem signals — community, SDKs, integrations, (7) Strategic bets — what we're building next, (8) Competitive landscape in developer products, (9) Resourcing implications, (10) Asks. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (time-to-first-call) is the developer adoption KPI most decks skip - Slide 5 (DX quality) is what separates loved APIs from used ones - Slide 6 (ecosystem signals) is the leading indicator of developer product health </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We just ran a pricing experiment — A/B test of new pricing tiers, or limited-rollout of a new packaging model. Need to present results + recommend next steps. </context> <inputs> - Experiment design: [paste] - Run-time + sample size: [paste] - Results: [conversion, ACV, time-to-close, customer feedback] - Statistical significance: [paste] - Recommended next step: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide pricing experiment deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline result, (2) Experiment design + hypothesis, (3) Sample size + statistical power, (4) Results — conversion + ACV, (5) Customer feedback signals, (6) Risks identified, (7) Recommended next step — roll out / iterate / kill, (8) Implementation plan if rolling out. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (sample size + power) prevents over-reading thin data - Slide 7 must take a position — kill / iterate / roll out, no fence-sitting - Customer feedback (slide 5) must include actual quotes, not summary </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for results. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We just completed a round of user research — interviews, surveys, or analytics deep-dive. Need to present insights to product + design + leadership. </context> <inputs> - Research question: [paste] - Methodology: [paste] - Sample size + composition: [paste] - Top insights: [list] - Anonymized quotes: [paste] - Implications: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide user research insights deck. Slide order: (1) Title + research question, (2) Methodology + sample, (3) Top 3 insights, (4) Insight 1 + supporting quotes, (5) Insight 2 + supporting quotes, (6) Insight 3 + supporting quotes, (7) Surprises — what we didn't expect, (8) Implications for product + design, (9) Recommended next steps. </task> <constraints> - Every insight (4-6) must include at least 2 anonymized direct quotes - Slide 7 (surprises) is the differentiator — most research decks skip this - Slide 9 must be specific actions, not generic "iterate" </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Indented quotes for slides 4-6. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> The product roadmap needs alignment across engineering, design, marketing, sales, and customer success. Each function has different priorities and timing constraints. Need a deck that surfaces conflicts and reaches alignment. </context> <inputs> - Product roadmap items: [list with timing] - Each function's priorities for the period: [paste] - Known conflicts or dependencies: [list] - Resourcing constraints: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide cross-functional alignment deck. Slide order: (1) Title + alignment headline, (2) Product roadmap commitments, (3) Engineering capacity + commitments, (4) Design capacity + commitments, (5) Marketing motion + content needs, (6) Sales motion + enablement needs, (7) Customer success + support needs, (8) Conflicts identified — surface them, (9) Dependencies + sequencing implications, (10) Proposed resolution, (11) Decisions needed + owners. </task> <constraints> - Slide 8 (conflicts) must surface conflicts directly, not hide them - Slide 11 must have explicit owners per decision - Each function (3-7) must show capacity vs. ask, not just commitments </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for commitments per function. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly review of our product-led growth funnel — signups, activation, engagement, conversion, retention. Surface where the funnel is leaking and what to optimize. </context> <inputs> - Funnel stages + current conversion at each: [paste] - vs. prior quarter: [paste] - vs. benchmark: [paste] - Top 3 leaks identified: [briefly] - Proposed experiments: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide PLG funnel deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Funnel overview — stage by stage conversion, (3) Trend vs. prior quarter, (4) vs. industry / category benchmarks, (5) Top 3 leak points + root cause hypothesis, (6) Activation deep-dive — what triggers it, (7) Conversion deep-dive — free to paid, (8) Retention deep-dive — by cohort, (9) Proposed experiments to fix leaks, (10) Asks. </task> <constraints> - Funnel slide (2) must show absolute numbers, not just % - Slide 5 (leaks) must have hypothesis, not just observation - Activation (slide 6) must be defined explicitly — what does activated mean </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown funnel tables. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly synthesis of customer feedback from support tickets, NPS comments, customer interviews, and sales conversations. Surface patterns + prioritize for the roadmap. </context> <inputs> - Sources analyzed: [paste] - Volume of feedback per source: [paste] - Top themes identified: [list] - Anonymized representative quotes: [paste] - Implications for the roadmap: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide customer feedback synthesis deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Sources + methodology, (3) Top 5 themes by frequency, (4) Theme 1 deep-dive + quotes, (5) Theme 2 deep-dive + quotes, (6) Theme 3 deep-dive + quotes, (7) Patterns by segment / persona, (8) Implications for roadmap, (9) Open questions for further research. </task> <constraints> - Each theme (4-6) must include both quote AND frequency data - Slide 7 (by segment) prevents oversimplifying - Slide 9 (open questions) signals research-mature feedback synthesis </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Indented quotes. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Monthly all-hands for the company. Mix of leadership update, team wins, business state, Q&A. Build trust + alignment. </context> <inputs> - Month: [paste] - Top of mind for leadership: [briefly] - Team wins to celebrate: [list] - Business metrics worth sharing: [paste] - Key team announcements: [briefly] - Pre-submitted questions: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide monthly all-hands deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence month theme, (2) Top of mind from leadership, (3) Business state — key metrics, (4) Customer wins, (5) Product / engineering shipped, (6) Team wins + recognitions, (7) New team members + welcomes, (8) Departures + thank-yous (if any), (9) Strategic update / what's next, (10) Pre-submitted Q&A, (11) Live Q&A pointer, (12) Closing thought. </task> <constraints> - Be specific in recognitions (slide 6) — name people + what they did - Slide 8 (departures) signals integrity — name them and thank them - Closing thought (slide 12) is the meeting's emotional anchor — don't skip </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly or off-cycle town hall. Bigger than all-hands — covers strategy, financial state, key bets, longer Q&A. Whole-company. </context> <inputs> - Strategic narrative for the period: [paste] - Financial state — what we can share: [paste] - Strategic bets we're making: [list] - Things we're explicitly NOT doing: [list] - Key team / org changes: [briefly] - Open questions from the company: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 14-slide town hall deck. Slide order: (1) Title + the period's narrative, (2) Where we are vs. where we said we'd be, (3) Business state — financial + customer, (4) Strategic bets — 3-5, (5) What we're NOT doing this period, (6) Org changes — additions, role shifts, reorgs, (7) Customer + market shifts we're responding to, (8) Top wins of the period, (9) Top challenges we're working on, (10) Recognitions — specific, named, (11) Q&A — pre-submitted, (12) Live Q&A, (13) What I'd love everyone to take away, (14) Schedule of next gatherings. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (what we're NOT doing) is the senior leadership signal — names what we cut - Slide 9 (challenges) prevents the deck from being all positive - Slide 13 (takeaway) is the one thing the company remembers </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Team kickoff for the new quarter. Smaller than all-hands — function or team level. Sets priorities, rituals, and operating cadence. </context> <inputs> - Team + function: [paste] - Quarter priorities: [list] - Operating cadence: [paste] - Key milestones: [paste] - Team norms or rituals: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide team kickoff deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence quarter theme, (2) Last quarter recap — wins + lessons, (3) Quarter priorities — 3-5 max, (4) Key milestones + dates, (5) Operating cadence — meetings, reviews, retros, (6) Team norms — how we work, (7) Decision-making model — who decides what, (8) Cross-functional commitments, (9) Risks + dependencies, (10) Opening Q&A. </task> <constraints> - Slide 7 (decision-making model) prevents the team from re-litigating who owns what - Slide 5 (cadence) should be specific calendar invites, not generic - Slide 6 (norms) should be 3-5 concrete behaviors, not platitudes </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Team or leadership just completed an offsite — 2-4 days of focused planning + bonding. Need a recap deck that captures what was decided and what comes next. </context> <inputs> - Offsite goals: [paste] - Decisions made: [list] - Decisions deferred: [list] - Action items + owners: [list] - Themes / takeaways: [briefly] - Open questions: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide offsite recap deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence summary of the offsite, (2) Goals we set out with, (3) Decisions made — with owners, (4) Decisions deferred — with reason + revisit date, (5) Themes that emerged, (6) Action items + owners + dates, (7) Open questions for further work, (8) Operating implications — calendar, ritual, comms changes, (9) Next steps + how we'll track. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 + 6 must have OWNERS — offsite decisions without owners die in the parking lot - Slide 4 (deferred decisions) must have revisit dates, not "later" - Slide 7 (open questions) prevents pretending all questions were answered </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for decisions and action items. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> A new manager is joining the team. I'm setting them up for success with an onboarding deck that explains the team, the work, the culture, and what they need to know in their first 30/60/90 days. </context> <inputs> - New manager: [name + role + background] - Team they're inheriting: [composition, recent context] - Current state of the work: [paste] - Specific challenges they should know about: [list] - 30/60/90 day expectations: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide new manager onboarding deck. Slide order: (1) Title + welcome, (2) Team composition + 1-line per person, (3) Recent team context — wins, losses, ongoing tensions, (4) Current work + roadmap, (5) Stakeholders they'll work with — internal map, (6) Specific challenges + nuances, (7) 30-day expectations — listen, meet, observe, (8) 60-day expectations — first decisions, first commitments, (9) 90-day expectations — own a deliverable + raise the level, (10) Resources + people to know, (11) My commitments to them — how I'll support. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (recent context) must be honest about ongoing tensions - Slide 11 (manager-to-manager commitments) is the trust-building slide - 30-day expectations must include "listen more than talk" </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> We're going to announce a layoff or restructuring. Internal-only deck for the leadership team to align on messaging, sequencing, and follow-up support before the announcement. </context> <inputs> - Scope of layoff: [paste — number, function, geography] - Reason: [paste] - Severance + support package: [briefly] - Communication sequence: [briefly] - Manager talking points: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide layoff comms alignment deck. Slide order: (1) Title — "Internal alignment for [layoff/RIF]", (2) Scope + numbers, (3) Reason — the honest narrative, (4) Severance + support details, (5) Comms sequence — hour by hour, (6) Manager talking points — what to say, what NOT to say, (7) Affected employee experience — what they'll receive when, (8) Remaining employee experience — what they need to hear, (9) External communication plan, (10) Risk + escalation paths, (11) Manager + leader support resources. </task> <constraints> - Internal only — language is direct, not polished - Slide 6 (talking points) must include explicit NOT-to-say items - Slide 8 (remaining employees) is non-negotiable — survivors need clarity too </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes brief. </format>

<context> Annual or biannual culture + values review for the team. Reaffirms values, surfaces where we're living them and where we're falling short, proposes updates. </context> <inputs> - Current company values: [paste] - Examples of values lived: [list] - Examples of values violated: [briefly — anonymized] - Proposed changes to values: [briefly] - Operationalizing values into rituals: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide culture + values deck. Slide order: (1) Title + framing, (2) Why we're revisiting now, (3) Current values — restated with examples, (4) Where we're living the values — specific stories, (5) Where we're falling short — honest, (6) Proposed updates — adds, removes, refines, (7) How values show up in hiring, (8) How values show up in performance reviews, (9) How values show up in promotions, (10) Discussion + feedback request. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (falling short) is non-negotiable — values without honest assessment are wallpaper - Slides 7-9 (operationalizing) are what make values real — without them, values are decorations - Stories on slide 4 must be specific and recent, not historical </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. Prose for slides 4, 5. </format>

<context> Annual DEI update for the team + board. Honest assessment of where we are, where we're not, and what we're doing about it. </context> <inputs> - Current demographic composition: [paste — by level, function, region] - Year-over-year changes: [paste] - Pay equity audit results: [paste] - Hiring funnel by demographic: [paste] - Retention by demographic: [paste] - Programs + initiatives: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide DEI update deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Current composition by level + function, (3) YoY changes — improvements + gaps, (4) Pay equity audit + corrections made, (5) Hiring funnel by demographic — where leakage is, (6) Retention by demographic, (7) Performance review distribution by demographic, (8) Programs we're running + impact, (9) Where we're falling short — honest, (10) Commitments for next year, (11) Discussion. </task> <constraints> - Slide 9 (falling short) is non-negotiable - Data must be specific, not generic - Slide 10 (commitments) must be measurable, with timelines </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for composition and funnel data. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly engineering department update — to the rest of the company or to the exec team. What we shipped, what we learned, where we're heading. </context> <inputs> - Quarter shipped: [paste] - Reliability + incident data: [paste] - Velocity metrics: [paste] - Tech debt addressed + remaining: [paste] - Hiring + team growth: [briefly] - Next quarter priorities: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide engineering department update. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Shipped this quarter — table, (3) Reliability + incidents — trend, (4) Velocity metrics — by team, (5) Tech debt addressed + remaining, (6) Platform investments + their impact, (7) Hiring + team growth, (8) Next quarter priorities, (9) Risks + dependencies, (10) Asks of other departments. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (reliability) must include incident-by-severity and trend - Slide 5 (tech debt) must distinguish addressed from accumulated - Slide 10 (asks) makes engineering visibility actionable </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables heavy. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly sales department update for the company or exec team. Numbers + narrative on what's working in sales. </context> <inputs> - Quarter results: [bookings, pipeline, deals] - Top wins: [briefly] - Notable losses: [briefly] - Process / motion changes: [briefly] - Hiring + team growth: [briefly] - Next quarter priorities: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide sales department update. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Quarter results vs. plan, (3) Top 3 wins + the story behind each, (4) Notable losses + what we learned, (5) Pipeline health, (6) Motion changes we've implemented, (7) Hiring + team growth, (8) Sales enablement asks, (9) Marketing + product asks, (10) Next quarter focus. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (losses) must be specific — generic "lost to competition" reads as lazy - Slides 8-9 (asks) make sales visibility actionable - Slide 6 (motion changes) is the senior sales leader signal </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly marketing department update — channel performance, pipeline contribution, brand health, content shipped. </context> <inputs> - Quarter results — pipeline sourced, ARR influenced, MQL/SQL: [paste] - Channel performance: [paste] - Content shipped + impact: [briefly] - Brand health metrics: [paste] - Marketing motion changes: [briefly] - Next quarter priorities: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide marketing department update. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Pipeline contribution + influenced ARR, (3) Channel performance, (4) Content shipped + traction, (5) Brand health — awareness, sentiment, search trends, (6) Marketing motion shifts, (7) Hiring + team growth, (8) Sales partnership asks, (9) Product partnership asks, (10) Next quarter focus. </task> <constraints> - Slide 2 must distinguish sourced vs. influenced ARR - Slide 4 (content) should include traction, not just shipped count - Slides 8-9 (cross-functional asks) make marketing influence visible </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for channel + content. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Quarterly customer success department update — health metrics, expansion contribution, churn analysis, programs shipped. </context> <inputs> - Quarter results — NRR, GRR, churn, expansion ARR: [paste] - Customer health by segment: [paste] - Top expansion wins: [briefly] - Notable churn events + reasons: [briefly] - Programs shipped: [briefly] - Next quarter priorities: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide CS department update. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) NRR + GRR + trend, (3) Health distribution by segment, (4) Top 3 expansion wins, (5) Top 3 churn events + root causes, (6) Programs shipped + impact, (7) Hiring + team growth, (8) Product + engineering asks, (9) Sales partnership asks, (10) Next quarter focus. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (churn) must include root causes, not just "lost the renewal" - Slide 4 (expansion) must include the story of HOW we expanded - Slide 8-9 (asks) make CS feedback actionable </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for NRR and health. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Major company milestone — 1-year, 5-year, $XM ARR, big customer win, etc. Internal celebration + reflection deck. </context> <inputs> - Milestone: [paste] - Where we started: [briefly] - Where we are now: [briefly] - Specific stories from the journey: [list] - People who shaped the milestone: [list] - Forward look: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide milestone deck. Slide order: (1) Title + milestone celebration, (2) Where we started — honest origin, (3) The numbers behind the milestone, (4) Specific stories from the journey — 2-3, (5) People who shaped this — name them, (6) What we learned along the way, (7) What this unlocks for what's next, (8) Closing thought. </task> <constraints> - Slide 2 (origin) should be specific and humble, not legendary - Slide 5 (people) must name specific people, not "the team" - Slide 8 (closing) is the emotional anchor </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Prose, not bullets, for slides 4, 6, 8. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Something serious happened — outage, breach, leadership departure, customer crisis, public incident. I need to communicate internally fast, before rumors fill the gap. </context> <inputs> - What happened: [paste] - Current status: [paste] - What we know vs. don't know: [paste] - Customer + external impact: [paste] - What employees need to know to do their jobs: [paste] - Next update timing: [paste] </inputs> <task> Generate a 7-slide internal crisis comms deck. Slide order: (1) Title — direct, not euphemistic, (2) What happened — 2 sentences, no spin, (3) Current status, (4) What we know vs. don't know, (5) Customer + external impact, (6) What employees should + shouldn't say externally, (7) Next update timing + how to escalate questions. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (know vs. don't know) is the trust-building slide — admitting uncertainty earns credibility - Slide 6 (what to say externally) prevents employees from speaking out of script - Slide 7 (next update) eliminates the rumor vacuum </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Prose, not bullets, for slide 2. Speaker notes brief. </format>

<context> Annual sales kickoff (SKO). The most important internal sales event — sets the tone, the strategy, the comp plan, the comp targets, the playbook for the year. </context> <inputs> - Last year results: [paste] - Strategic priorities: [paste] - New comp plan: [briefly] - New territory + segmentation: [briefly] - Product + pricing changes: [briefly] - Theme for the year: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 15-slide SKO deck. Slide order: (1) Title + theme of the year, (2) Last year recap — wins, losses, learnings, (3) Why this year is different, (4) Company strategic priorities, (5) Sales strategic priorities, (6) New comp plan overview, (7) Territory + segmentation changes, (8) Product + pricing changes, (9) Top customer stories from last year, (10) The playbook for this year, (11) Enablement + training plan, (12) Comp targets + ramp expectations, (13) Recognition program, (14) Top performers — public recognition, (15) The closing call to action. </task> <constraints> - Slide 15 (call to action) is the most-remembered slide — invest in it - Slide 14 (recognition) is non-negotiable for SKO motivation - Comp plan (slide 6) must be clear — confusing comp plans demoralize the room </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Day-1 training deck for new sales hires. Sets the foundation for product, market, motion, and tools. </context> <inputs> - Product overview: [paste] - Target customer profile + personas: [paste] - Competitive landscape: [briefly] - Sales motion + cycle: [briefly] - Tools they'll use: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide day-1 sales training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + welcome, (2) Our story — why we exist, (3) Product overview — what we sell, (4) Target customer profile — who, what, where, (5) Personas — specific roles, (6) Why customers buy us, (7) Why customers don't buy us — common objections, (8) Competitive landscape — who we beat, who we lose to, (9) The sales motion — stage by stage, (10) Sales tools you'll use, (11) Resources + people to know, (12) What to focus on in your first week. </task> <constraints> - Slide 7 (why customers don't buy) is the senior signal — gives the new hire honest preparation - Slide 12 must be specific actions, not generic "shadow your peers" - Slide 6 + 7 should be balanced — new hires need both pitch and counter-pitch </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Deep-dive product training for the sales team. New product, major release, or refresher. Built to help reps sell the product, not for engineers. </context> <inputs> - Product / feature: [paste] - Customer problem it solves: [paste] - Key capabilities: [list] - Pricing + packaging: [briefly] - Customer stories / use cases: [briefly] - Common objections: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide product training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + what this product is in 1 sentence, (2) The customer problem we solve, (3) Who buys it — persona, (4) Key capabilities + how to talk about them, (5) Pricing + packaging — what reps need to know, (6) Demo flow — the 3 surfaces to show, (7) Customer stories — 2 specific examples, (8) Common objections + responses, (9) Competitive positioning — when we win, (10) Common rep mistakes + how to avoid, (11) Resources + practice plan. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (capabilities) must be customer-language, not engineering-language - Slide 10 (common mistakes) is the senior product trainer signal - Slide 6 (demo flow) should be 3 surfaces, not the entire product </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Workshop deck for sales team on handling the top objections. Interactive — reps will roleplay each objection. </context> <inputs> - Top 8-10 objections we hear: [list] - The wrong response to each: [briefly] - The right response to each: [briefly] - Customer stories that defuse each: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide objection handling workshop deck. Slide order: (1) Title + framing, (2) Why objection handling matters more than features, (3) The objection handling framework — acknowledge, reframe, evidence, (4) Objection 1 — wrong response + right response + customer story, (5) Objection 2 — same structure, (6) Objection 3 — same, (7) Objection 4 — same, (8) Objection 5 — same, (9) Common patterns — what objections really mean, (10) When to push back vs. defer, (11) Roleplay scenarios, (12) Practice plan. </task> <constraints> - Each objection slide must include the WRONG response — that's where reps learn - Slide 9 (patterns) is the senior trainer signal — surfacing root causes - Slide 10 (push back vs. defer) is the most senior judgment in selling </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Training deck on discovery skills — the highest-leverage skill in B2B sales. Built to teach question hierarchies, listening, and pacing. </context> <inputs> - Discovery framework we use: [briefly — MEDDIC, SPIN, etc.] - Common discovery mistakes: [list] - The questions every rep should know: [list] - Customer signals that mean "stop pitching, go deeper": [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide discovery training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + why discovery matters, (2) The framework — overview, (3) Question hierarchies — context → problem → impact → vision, (4) The 5 questions every rep must know, (5) Common discovery mistakes — leading the witness, premature pitching, (6) Listening signals — when to go deeper vs. when to move on, (7) Pacing — when discovery should end, (8) Roleplay scenario — discovery call simulation, (9) Self-assessment — am I doing discovery or interrogating?, (10) Practice plan. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (common mistakes) is the deck's most actionable - Slide 6 (listening signals) is the senior selling skill being trained - Slide 9 (self-assessment) gives reps a tool they take to every call </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Training deck on demo skills — what makes a great demo vs. a feature-walkthrough. For SEs, AEs who demo, and customer-facing PMs. </context> <inputs> - Common demo mistakes: [list] - The structure of a great demo: [briefly] - Surface vs. value selling: [briefly] - Demo customization techniques: [briefly] - Stories that close: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide demo training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + why demo skill matters, (2) The 5 most common demo mistakes, (3) The structure of a great demo, (4) Surface-selling vs. value-selling, (5) How to customize a demo on the fly, (6) Story-driven demos vs. feature-walks, (7) Handling the "can your product do X?" question, (8) Closing the demo with momentum, (9) Self-assessment — what to grade yourself on, (10) Practice plan. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (surface vs. value) is the senior signal - Slide 7 (can your product do X?) is the most common demo killer - Slide 8 (closing with momentum) is what separates good demos from great ones </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Negotiation training for senior AEs. Built for late-stage deals where price, terms, and scope are all in play. Not how to handle objections — how to negotiate. </context> <inputs> - Common negotiation scenarios: [list] - Tactics buyers use: [list] - The negotiation framework we want reps to use: [briefly] - Walk-away criteria: [briefly] - Stories of wins and losses: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide negotiation training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + why senior reps need this, (2) The framework — anchor, trade-off, walk-away, (3) Tactics buyers use + how to read them, (4) Anchoring — getting your number out first, (5) Trade-offs — never give without getting, (6) Walk-away criteria — pre-commit, (7) Multi-stakeholder negotiations, (8) Handling "we need a 20% discount", (9) Stories — wins from holding the line, losses from caving, (10) Practice plan. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (trade-offs) is the senior negotiation skill — never give without getting - Slide 6 (walk-away) must be pre-committed before negotiation, not in the moment - Slide 9 must include LOSS stories — reps learn from them more than from wins </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Training deck on how reps should think about pricing + discounting. The instinct to discount is the biggest margin leak in most sales orgs. </context> <inputs> - Current pricing + tier structure: [briefly] - Discount approval matrix: [briefly] - Margin implications of discounts: [paste] - Stories of unnecessary discounts: [briefly] - Stories of successful holds: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide pricing + discount training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + the discount problem, (2) Why discounts hurt — margin, signaling, future renewals, (3) The discount approval matrix — who approves what, (4) When discounting IS the right move, (5) When discounting is NOT — buyers who can pay, (6) Alternatives to discounting — trade-offs we can offer, (7) Stories of holds that worked, (8) Stories of discounts that hurt us, (9) Self-check before every discount conversation. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (when not to discount) is the most-skipped training topic — and the most valuable - Slide 6 (alternatives) gives reps options other than just price - Slide 9 (self-check) gives reps a tool they can apply to every deal </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Training deck on strategic account planning — for AEs covering top accounts. How to map stakeholders, find white space, and run a 12-18 month plan. </context> <inputs> - Account planning framework: [briefly] - Stakeholder mapping techniques: [briefly] - White-space identification: [briefly] - Customer success integration: [briefly] - Cadence + reviews: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide account planning training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + why account planning, (2) The framework — who, what, why, when, (3) Stakeholder mapping — known, unknown, blocker, (4) Finding white space — products, geos, business units, (5) Quantifying account potential, (6) The land + expand sequence, (7) Engagement cadence — exec, peer, technical, (8) Working with CS — alignment, (9) Account plan review cadence, (10) Practice — map your top 3 accounts. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (stakeholder mapping) must include UNKNOWN stakeholders — what reps don't know is the gap - Slide 7 (cadence) must include exec engagement — most reps under-engage at exec level - Slide 10 (practice) makes the training actionable immediately </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Training deck on how to conduct your own win-loss interviews — for senior AEs and sales managers. Built to teach the skill, not to outsource it. </context> <inputs> - Why we do win-loss: [briefly] - The 10 questions to ask: [list] - Common biases to avoid: [list] - How to debrief findings: [briefly] - How to feed findings to product + marketing: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide win-loss training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + why win-loss matters, (2) When to do win-loss — every deal vs. selective, (3) The 10 questions every rep should ask, (4) How to actually ask — pacing, listening, follow-up, (5) Common biases — confirmation, recency, social desirability, (6) How to capture findings — written, not memory, (7) How to feed findings to product + marketing, (8) How to use findings in your next deal, (9) Roleplay practice. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (biases) is non-negotiable — without bias awareness, win-loss confirms whatever the rep wanted to hear - Slide 4 (how to ask) matters more than the questions themselves - Slide 7 (feeding to product + marketing) makes win-loss organizationally valuable </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Sales kickoff or annual comp plan walkthrough. Reps need to understand their plan, examples of how it pays out, and the rules of the road. </context> <inputs> - Comp plan structure: [paste] - Quota + accelerator mechanics: [paste] - SPIFFs + bonuses: [briefly] - Example payout scenarios: [briefly] - Common questions: [list] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide comp plan walkthrough deck. Slide order: (1) Title + framing, (2) Comp plan philosophy — what we're rewarding, (3) Base + variable + accelerator structure, (4) Quota assignment + ramp expectations, (5) Accelerator mechanics — when they kick in, (6) SPIFFs + special incentives, (7) Example payout — average rep, (8) Example payout — top performer, (9) Example payout — under-performing scenario, (10) Common questions answered. </task> <constraints> - Examples (slides 7-9) must use real numbers, not abstract % - Under-performance example (slide 9) is non-negotiable — reps need to know the downside - Slide 10 (Q&A) pre-empts the questions reps ask anyway </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for payout examples. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Annual refresher on the sales methodology we use — MEDDIC, SPIN, Challenger, Sandler, etc. Reminds reps of the framework and reinforces consistency. </context> <inputs> - Methodology we use: [name] - Core framework components: [list] - Where reps tend to drift from the methodology: [briefly] - Examples of methodology in action: [briefly] - Tools + templates that reinforce: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide methodology refresher deck. Slide order: (1) Title + why methodology matters, (2) The framework — overview, (3) Component 1 deep-dive, (4) Component 2 deep-dive, (5) Component 3 deep-dive, (6) Where reps drift from the methodology, (7) Methodology in action — winning deal example, (8) Methodology missed — losing deal example, (9) Tools + templates we use to enforce, (10) Practice + accountability. </task> <constraints> - Slide 6 (where reps drift) is the most useful — name the actual patterns - Slide 8 (missed methodology = lost deal) is the proof - Slide 9 must show tools — methodology without tools doesn't stick </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Training deck on sales tools + CRM hygiene. Most reps don't use the CRM well — this deck enforces standards. </context> <inputs> - CRM + tools stack: [paste] - Required fields + cadence: [briefly] - Common hygiene mistakes: [list] - What good CRM hygiene looks like: [briefly] - Tools that enforce + signal quality: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide CRM training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + why CRM hygiene matters, (2) The stack overview, (3) Required fields + update cadence, (4) Common hygiene mistakes, (5) What good CRM hygiene looks like — examples, (6) The minimum daily / weekly CRM rhythm, (7) Reporting + dashboards reps should review, (8) Accountability + audit cadence, (9) Practice + commitments. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (mistakes) must be specific — generic "keep CRM updated" loses - Slide 6 (daily/weekly rhythm) makes hygiene concrete - Slide 8 (audit) is the accountability mechanism </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Training deck for sales managers on how to coach their reps. Different from selling — built for the coaching skill. </context> <inputs> - Coaching framework we use: [briefly] - Common manager mistakes: [list] - Effective coaching cadence: [briefly] - 1:1 structure: [briefly] - Deal coaching vs. skill coaching: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide manager coaching training deck. Slide order: (1) Title + why coaching matters more than selling, (2) Coaching framework — diagnose, intervene, follow up, (3) Deal coaching vs. skill coaching, (4) Effective 1:1 structure, (5) Common manager mistakes — over-rescuing, under-listening, (6) The 5 questions great coaches ask, (7) Coaching pipeline rep-by-rep, (8) When coaching isn't enough — performance management, (9) Coaching cadence — weekly, monthly, quarterly, (10) Self-assessment as a coach. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (manager mistakes) is the deck's most actionable - Slide 8 (when coaching isn't enough) is the honest framing - Slide 10 (self-assessment) gives managers tools, not just lectures </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> A senior AE is underperforming and needs a structured performance improvement plan. The deck is for the AE + their manager + HR — sets clear expectations, measurable milestones, and a realistic path forward. </context> <inputs> - AE + tenure + role: [briefly] - Performance gap: [specific — quota attainment, pipeline health, behaviors] - Root causes identified: [briefly] - Support being offered: [briefly] - 30 / 60 / 90 day expectations: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide PIP deck. Slide order: (1) Title + framing — "Path to performance", (2) Where we are vs. where we need to be, (3) Specific gaps — quantified, not generic, (4) Root causes identified together, (5) Support being offered — coaching, training, account assignments, (6) 30-day expectations — measurable, (7) 60-day expectations, (8) 90-day expectations + decision point, (9) Check-in cadence + escalation. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (gaps) must be quantified — "performance is weak" is junior framing - Slide 8 (decision point) must name what happens if expectations aren't met - Slide 5 (support) is non-negotiable — PIPs without support read as exit plans, not improvement plans </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for gaps and expectations. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Consulting-style strategy deck — a McKinsey/BCG/Bain 3-act structure: setup, complication, resolution. Built for client executives. </context> <inputs> - Client context: [paste] - The strategic question we're answering: [paste] - The data we analyzed: [briefly] - The recommendation: [briefly] - The expected outcome: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 14-slide consulting-style 3-act deck. Slide order: (1) Title + executive summary in 1 slide, (2) Setup — where the client is today, (3) Setup — the assets and capabilities they have, (4) Setup — the markets they operate in, (5) Complication — the shift in the market, (6) Complication — why the current strategy doesn't work, (7) Complication — what's at risk if no action, (8) Resolution — the recommended strategy, (9) Resolution — why this strategy specifically, (10) Resolution — the alternatives we considered + ruled out, (11) Resolution — the roadmap to execute, (12) Resolution — the risks + mitigations, (13) Resolution — the expected outcome quantified, (14) Next steps. </task> <constraints> - Strict 3-act structure — setup, complication, resolution - Slide 10 (alternatives) is the consulting signal — shows real analysis - Slide 13 (outcome quantified) is what wins client buy-in </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Strategy deck built on the Pyramid Principle (Minto) — answer first, then supporting arguments, then evidence. Built for execs who want the punchline up top. </context> <inputs> - Strategic question: [paste] - Top-line answer / recommendation: [paste] - Supporting arguments: [list 3] - Evidence per argument: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide pyramid principle deck. Slide order: (1) Title + recommendation up front, (2) The strategic question, (3) The answer in 1 sentence, (4) Three supporting arguments, (5) Argument 1 — evidence, (6) Argument 2 — evidence, (7) Argument 3 — evidence, (8) Risks + how we'd manage, (9) Implementation pathway, (10) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Slide 1 must have the recommendation, not the question - Three supporting arguments — not 4, not 5 - Each evidence slide (5-7) must include specific data, not generic </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> SCR brief deck — situation, complication, resolution. The classic consulting brief format, compressed for senior client review. </context> <inputs> - Situation — current state: [paste] - Complication — what's changed: [paste] - Resolution — what we recommend: [paste] - Implementation: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide SCR brief deck. Slide order: (1) Title + SCR framing, (2) Situation — current state in 1 paragraph, (3) The data behind the situation, (4) Complication — what's shifted, (5) The data behind the complication, (6) Resolution — the recommendation, (7) Implementation pathway, (8) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Maximum 8 slides — SCR briefs compress further than full strategy decks - Slides 3 + 5 (data) must be specific, not generic - Slide 6 (resolution) is one paragraph, not bullets </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. Prose for slides 2, 4, 6. </format>

<context> Multi-year strategic roadmap for a client — typically a 18-36 month transformation plan. Built for client steering committee review. </context> <inputs> - Client vision: [paste] - Current state: [paste] - Strategic initiatives: [list with phasing] - Resource + investment requirements: [briefly] - Milestones + decision gates: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 13-slide strategic roadmap deck. Slide order: (1) Title + vision, (2) Current state assessment, (3) The destination — vision in detail, (4) Roadmap overview — phases, (5) Phase 1 — initiatives + outcomes, (6) Phase 2 — initiatives + outcomes, (7) Phase 3 — initiatives + outcomes, (8) Resource + investment requirements, (9) Decision gates between phases, (10) Risks per phase, (11) Governance + steering, (12) Success metrics by phase, (13) Decisions needed to start. </task> <constraints> - Phases must have clear decision gates (slide 9) - Slide 11 (governance) is non-negotiable — strategic plans without governance don't execute - Each phase (5-7) must include OUTCOMES, not just activities </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for phasing. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Digital transformation strategy for a client. Multi-year, cross-functional, requires significant investment + change management. </context> <inputs> - Client industry + maturity: [paste] - Current digital state: [briefly] - Strategic ambition: [briefly] - Major workstreams: [list] - Change management approach: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 14-slide digital transformation deck. Slide order: (1) Title + ambition, (2) Current digital state assessment, (3) Industry benchmarks + competitive position, (4) The case for transformation now, (5) Strategic ambition + target state, (6) Major workstreams — overview, (7) Workstream 1 — technology platform, (8) Workstream 2 — operating model, (9) Workstream 3 — talent + capabilities, (10) Workstream 4 — customer experience, (11) Phasing + sequencing, (12) Investment requirements, (13) Risks + change management, (14) Decisions needed to start. </task> <constraints> - Slide 13 (change management) is non-negotiable — most digital transformations fail on change management - Each workstream (7-10) must include OUTCOMES + dependencies - Slide 4 (case for transformation) must be specific to client's competitive position </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Operating model redesign for a client. Restructuring how work flows, decisions are made, and capabilities are organized. </context> <inputs> - Current operating model: [briefly] - Problems with current model: [briefly] - Proposed model: [briefly] - Capability shifts required: [briefly] - Transition plan: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide operating model deck. Slide order: (1) Title + thesis, (2) Current operating model — described, (3) Problems with the current model, (4) Design principles for the new model, (5) Proposed model — overview, (6) Decision rights — who decides what, (7) Capabilities + functions in the new model, (8) Talent implications, (9) Transition plan — sequenced, (10) Risks + mitigations, (11) Quick wins to build momentum, (12) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (design principles) is the senior signal — operating model design follows principles, not preferences - Slide 6 (decision rights) is the practical engine of an operating model - Slide 11 (quick wins) builds change management momentum </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for decision rights. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Strategy deck for a client entering a new market — geographic, segment, or product. Built for the client steering committee decision. </context> <inputs> - Market being entered: [paste] - Strategic rationale: [briefly] - Market sizing + opportunity: [briefly] - Competitive landscape: [briefly] - Entry mode options: [briefly — organic, partnership, M&A] - Recommended path: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 13-slide market entry deck. Slide order: (1) Title + recommendation, (2) Why this market now, (3) Market sizing + opportunity, (4) Competitive landscape, (5) Customer needs + buying behavior, (6) Entry mode options — pros, cons, cost, time, (7) Recommended entry mode, (8) Capabilities required, (9) Go-to-market motion, (10) Phasing + milestones, (11) Investment requirements, (12) Risks + mitigations, (13) Decision points. </task> <constraints> - Slide 6 (entry mode options) is non-negotiable — recommendation without alternatives is opinion - Slide 8 (capabilities) is honest — naming what we lack is the senior signal - Slide 12 (risks) must include "what if competitive response is faster" </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for entry mode comparison. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Cost reduction strategy for a client — typically 10-25% cost out across the operating base. Built for CFO and CEO review. </context> <inputs> - Current cost base + structure: [paste] - Cost reduction target: [paste] - Categories analyzed: [list — labor, vendor, real estate, tech, etc.] - Quick wins identified: [briefly] - Structural changes required: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide cost reduction deck. Slide order: (1) Title + target, (2) Current cost base — breakdown, (3) Benchmarks vs. peers, (4) Where the savings are — by category, (5) Quick wins — what we can do in 30 days, (6) Structural changes — what takes 6-12 months, (7) People implications — honest, (8) Customer / quality risk per category, (9) Implementation roadmap, (10) Governance + tracking, (11) Risks + how we'd recalibrate, (12) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Slide 7 (people implications) must be honest about layoffs if applicable - Slide 8 (customer risk) prevents cost-out from harming long-term revenue - Slide 11 (recalibration) gives the client an out if cuts go too deep </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for cost categories. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Growth strategy for a client — moving into adjacent markets, products, or customer segments. Built for the board or strategy committee. </context> <inputs> - Current core business: [briefly] - Growth ambitions: [briefly] - Adjacent options analyzed: [list] - Recommended adjacencies: [briefly] - Investment + capability requirements: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide adjacent growth deck. Slide order: (1) Title + thesis, (2) Current core business + trajectory, (3) Why we need adjacent growth — runway of core, (4) Framework for evaluating adjacencies — distance, fit, scale, (5) Adjacencies considered + ranked, (6) Recommended adjacency 1 — opportunity + rationale, (7) Recommended adjacency 2 — opportunity + rationale, (8) Capabilities required, (9) Investment + timing, (10) Risks per adjacency, (11) Sequencing + decision gates, (12) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (framework) is the consulting signal — naming the criteria before the recommendation - Slide 5 must show ALL adjacencies analyzed, including rejected ones - Slide 8 (capabilities) is honest — naming what we'd have to build </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for adjacency ranking. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Customer experience strategy for a client — improving NPS, retention, and lifetime value through systematic CX improvement. </context> <inputs> - Current CX state: [paste — NPS, retention, complaints, churn drivers] - Journey map findings: [briefly] - Top friction points: [list] - Recommended improvements: [briefly] - Investment + timing: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide CX strategy deck. Slide order: (1) Title + headline, (2) Current CX state — quantified, (3) Journey map — friction points highlighted, (4) Top 5 friction points by impact, (5) Voice of customer — direct quotes, (6) Recommended improvements — by phase, (7) Operating model implications, (8) Technology + tooling required, (9) Talent + capability gaps, (10) ROI projection — NPS, retention, LTV, (11) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (VOC) is non-negotiable — quotes carry more weight than survey data - Slide 10 (ROI) must connect CX investment to financial outcome - Slide 7 (operating model) is what most CX decks skip — improvements without org change don't stick </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. Indented quotes for slide 5. </format>

<context> Innovation strategy for a client — typically setting up an innovation function, building new products, or driving systematic experimentation. </context> <inputs> - Innovation ambition: [briefly] - Current innovation activity: [briefly] - Capabilities gap: [briefly] - Recommended approach — internal, partnerships, ventures: [briefly] - Resource + governance model: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide innovation strategy deck. Slide order: (1) Title + ambition, (2) Why innovate now — strategic pressure, (3) Current innovation state, (4) Innovation operating model options, (5) Recommended model — internal, partnerships, or venture, (6) Pipeline approach — discovery, incubation, scaling, (7) Funding + portfolio approach, (8) Governance + decision gates, (9) Talent + culture implications, (10) Risk tolerance + failure expectations, (11) Metrics for innovation, (12) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Slide 10 (failure expectations) is the senior signal — innovation requires failure tolerance - Slide 8 (governance) is what makes innovation systematic vs. ad hoc - Slide 11 (metrics) must distinguish leading from lagging </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Sustainability or ESG strategy for a client — typically driven by regulatory pressure, investor demand, or competitive position. </context> <inputs> - Current ESG state: [paste] - Material issues: [list] - Regulatory + investor pressures: [briefly] - Strategic ambition: [briefly] - Initiatives required: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide ESG strategy deck. Slide order: (1) Title + ambition, (2) Why ESG now — regulatory, investor, competitive, (3) Current ESG state + benchmarks, (4) Material issues analysis, (5) ESG ambition by pillar — environmental, social, governance, (6) Strategic initiatives by pillar, (7) Capital + operating implications, (8) Reporting + disclosure requirements, (9) Risks of inaction, (10) Risks of overcommitment, (11) Phasing + milestones, (12) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (materiality) is the rigor signal — focus on what matters most to stakeholders - Slide 10 (risks of overcommitment) is non-negotiable — ESG plans that overcommit hurt credibility - Slide 9 + 10 balance — both action and over-action carry risk </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Customer segmentation strategy for a client — moving from generic customer treatment to segment-differentiated motion. </context> <inputs> - Current customer base: [paste] - Segmentation hypotheses: [list] - Segment economics: [briefly] - Differentiated motion per segment: [briefly] - Capability + tooling implications: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide segmentation strategy deck. Slide order: (1) Title + thesis, (2) Current customer treatment — generic, (3) Why segment now, (4) Segmentation framework — value, behavior, need, (5) Proposed segments — defined, (6) Segment economics — LTV, CAC, profitability, (7) Differentiated motion per segment, (8) Capability + tooling requirements, (9) Operating model implications, (10) Migration plan from current to segmented motion, (11) Decisions needed. </task> <constraints> - Segments (slide 5) must be operationally distinct, not just demographically different - Slide 6 (segment economics) is the proof — segments without economic difference aren't real segments - Slide 10 (migration) is what most segmentation decks skip — operationalizing the change </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for segment economics. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Pricing strategy refresh for a client — typically a 12-18 month optimization following a market shift, competitive change, or growth plateau. </context> <inputs> - Current pricing structure: [paste] - Performance signals — win/loss, NRR, contraction: [briefly] - Competitive pricing: [briefly] - Pricing hypothesis: [briefly] - Proposed changes: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide pricing refresh deck. Slide order: (1) Title + thesis, (2) Current pricing performance, (3) Win/loss signals on price, (4) Competitive pricing scan, (5) Pricing pain points — customer interviews, (6) Pricing hypothesis we're testing, (7) Proposed structure — tiers, packaging, mechanics, (8) Revenue impact modeling — base, upside, downside, (9) Customer communication plan, (10) Risks + mitigations, (11) Decisions + sequencing. </task> <constraints> - Slide 8 (revenue modeling) must include downside, not just upside - Slide 9 (comms plan) is non-negotiable for pricing changes - Slide 5 (customer interviews) gives the human input behind the data </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for tiers + revenue modeling. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Strategy deck for a client navigating a complex stakeholder environment — multiple decision-makers, hidden blockers, varying levels of support. Built to inform the engagement strategy, not just the work plan. </context> <inputs> - The change being driven: [paste] - Key stakeholders: [list — role, interest, influence] - Current support / opposition map: [briefly] - Hidden stakeholders we suspect exist: [briefly] - Influence levers available: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide stakeholder map + influence strategy deck. Slide order: (1) Title + framing, (2) The change we're driving — context, (3) Stakeholder map — interest × influence grid, (4) Champions — who's actively supporting + why, (5) Blockers — who's resisting + why (motives matter), (6) Unknown stakeholders — who we suspect but haven't mapped, (7) Influence levers per stakeholder type, (8) Engagement sequence — who first, who last, who never, (9) Risks — coalitions that could form against us, (10) First 30 days of engagement plan. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (blockers) must name MOTIVES, not just positions — surface what they're protecting - Slide 6 (unknown) is the senior signal — most stakeholder maps stop at known - Slide 8 (engagement sequence) is the strategy — who to engage when changes outcomes </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for stakeholder grid + engagement sequence. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Cross-functional project kickoff. Brings together people from multiple teams who don't always work together. Aligns on goals, roles, timeline, and decision-making. </context> <inputs> - Project: [name + 1-sentence what] - Sponsor + stakeholders: [list] - Goals + success criteria: [paste] - Team composition: [briefly] - Timeline + major milestones: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide cross-functional kickoff deck. Slide order: (1) Title + project in 1 sentence, (2) Why this matters — strategic context, (3) Goals + success criteria, (4) Sponsor + steering committee, (5) Team composition + roles (RACI), (6) Timeline + major milestones, (7) Decision-making model — who decides what, (8) Operating rhythm — meetings, reviews, escalation, (9) Risks + dependencies, (10) Commitments + first sprint. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (RACI) is non-negotiable — cross-functional projects fail on unclear roles - Slide 7 (decision-making model) prevents the team from re-litigating every decision - Slide 10 (commitments) makes the kickoff actionable, not just informational </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown RACI table. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Implementation kickoff with a new customer. After they've signed but before active deployment. Set expectations on both sides. </context> <inputs> - Customer: [name + use case + key stakeholders] - Implementation team — ours + theirs: [briefly] - Goals + success criteria: [paste] - Timeline + phases: [briefly] - Risks + dependencies: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide implementation kickoff deck. Slide order: (1) Title + welcome, (2) The goals we agreed to in sales, (3) Success criteria — what "live" looks like, (4) Our team + their team — RACI, (5) Implementation phases + timeline, (6) Communication cadence + escalation, (7) Risks + dependencies, (8) What we need from them, (9) What they can expect from us, (10) First steps + 30-day plan. </task> <constraints> - Slide 8 + 9 (mutual commitments) are non-negotiable — implementations die without explicit asks - Slide 3 (what "live" looks like) prevents scope creep — define done - Slide 10 (first 30 days) gives clear next actions </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown RACI table. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Single-team project kickoff — engineering team, sales team, marketing team, etc. tackling a defined project. Smaller than cross-functional, faster to align. </context> <inputs> - Project: [paste] - Team + roles: [briefly] - Goal + success criteria: [paste] - Timeline + sprints: [briefly] - Dependencies on other teams: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide single-team kickoff deck. Slide order: (1) Title + project, (2) Why this project, (3) Goals + success criteria, (4) Roles + ownership, (5) Sprint cadence + milestones, (6) Dependencies on other teams, (7) Risks + how we'd recalibrate, (8) First sprint commitments. </task> <constraints> - Total length under 8 slides — single-team kickoffs should be fast - Slide 6 (dependencies) prevents waiting on others discovered mid-project - Slide 8 (first sprint commitments) is the kickoff's deliverable </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes brief. </format>

<context> 1-2 day workshop kickoff — strategic planning workshop, design sprint, retrospective. Different from project kickoff — time-boxed, output-focused. </context> <inputs> - Workshop topic + goal: [paste] - Participants: [briefly] - Pre-work completed: [briefly] - Agenda + sessions: [briefly] - Expected deliverables: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide workshop kickoff deck. Slide order: (1) Title + goal, (2) Why we're doing this workshop, (3) Outcomes we'll produce, (4) Agenda overview, (5) Participants + their roles, (6) Pre-work summary, (7) Working norms for the workshop, (8) How we'll capture decisions + action items. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (outcomes) is the workshop's contract — what will exist at the end - Slide 7 (working norms) prevents the workshop from sliding into bad meeting patterns - Slide 8 (capture) is what makes workshops produce lasting output </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Formal charter for a major initiative — typically 6-12 months, significant investment, multiple workstreams. Used to get sponsor approval to launch. </context> <inputs> - Initiative: [paste] - Strategic rationale: [briefly] - Goals + success criteria: [paste] - Scope — in + out: [briefly] - Resources + timeline: [briefly] - Governance: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 11-slide initiative charter deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence initiative, (2) Strategic rationale, (3) Goals + success criteria, (4) Scope — in + out, (5) Approach + major workstreams, (6) Team + capabilities required, (7) Timeline + milestones, (8) Budget + resources, (9) Governance + steering, (10) Risks + decision gates, (11) Approval needed. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (scope) must explicitly include OUT of scope — charters fail on scope creep - Slide 10 (decision gates) is where sponsor approves continuation, not just kickoff - Slide 11 (approval) names specifically what needs sign-off </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for budget + milestones. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> External partnership kickoff — with a strategic partner, supplier, channel, or co-development partner. First formal alignment session. </context> <inputs> - Partner: [name + relationship] - Partnership goals — ours + theirs: [briefly] - Joint scope: [briefly] - Operating model: [briefly] - Governance + decision-making: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide partnership kickoff deck. Slide order: (1) Title + welcome, (2) Why this partnership, (3) Joint goals — both sides, (4) Joint scope + workstreams, (5) Operating model — how we'll work together, (6) Roles + ownership on both sides, (7) Communication + escalation, (8) Success metrics for both sides, (9) First 60-day commitments. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 must show goals from BOTH sides — partnerships fail when only one side's goals are visible - Slide 8 (metrics) must include both partners' success criteria - Slide 9 (commitments) makes the partnership concrete </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown table for joint roles. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Vendor or consultant engagement kickoff — first session with a third-party providing services. Different from partnership — vendor is delivering to us. </context> <inputs> - Vendor: [name + scope of work] - Deliverables: [paste] - Timeline + milestones: [briefly] - Resources from our side: [briefly] - Success criteria: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate an 8-slide vendor kickoff deck. Slide order: (1) Title + scope, (2) What we're hiring you to deliver, (3) Deliverables + acceptance criteria, (4) Timeline + milestones, (5) Resources we'll provide, (6) Communication + check-ins, (7) Decision-making + change requests, (8) What success looks like at the end. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (acceptance criteria) prevents deliverable disputes - Slide 7 (change requests) defines how scope expansions get priced - Slide 8 (what success looks like) is the final-acceptance contract </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes brief. </format>

<context> First integration kickoff after closing an M&A deal. Brings together the acquired team and the acquirer's integration team. </context> <inputs> - Deal context: [briefly] - Integration philosophy — full / loose / selective: [briefly] - Day-1 priorities: [briefly] - 90-day integration plan: [briefly] - Governance + steering: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 12-slide M&A integration kickoff deck. Slide order: (1) Title + welcome, (2) Why this acquisition — strategic context, (3) Our integration philosophy, (4) Day-1 priorities — what changes immediately, (5) What stays the same on day 1, (6) 30-day integration priorities, (7) 60-day, (8) 90-day, (9) Roles — integration team, leadership both sides, (10) Communication + cadence, (11) Risks + escalation, (12) Commitments to each other. </task> <constraints> - Slide 5 (what stays the same) reduces acquired-team anxiety - Slide 9 (roles) must name both sides — joint accountability - Slide 12 (commitments) is the trust-building anchor </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> Restructure / reorg kickoff — communicating a major organizational change to affected teams. After the decision is made, before the work begins. </context> <inputs> - Change scope: [briefly] - Why we're restructuring: [briefly] - What's changing — roles, reporting, structure: [briefly] - What's staying the same: [briefly] - Timeline + transition support: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 10-slide restructure kickoff deck. Slide order: (1) Title + framing, (2) Why we're restructuring, (3) Design principles for the new structure, (4) The new structure, (5) What's changing for each affected team, (6) What's staying the same, (7) Timeline + transition, (8) Support for affected employees, (9) Communication + Q&A path, (10) Commitments from leadership. </task> <constraints> - Slide 3 (design principles) is the trust signal — explains the WHY behind the structure - Slide 6 (staying the same) reduces anxiety - Slide 10 (commitments) names what leadership will do to make the change land </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Speaker notes in italics. </format>

<context> End-of-project closeout review. The project finished (or is about to). The deck captures outcomes, learnings, and hands off any ongoing work to a steady-state owner. </context> <inputs> - Project: [paste] - Original goals + success criteria: [paste] - Final outcomes: [paste] - What worked + what didn't: [briefly] - Ongoing work + steady-state owner: [briefly] </inputs> <task> Generate a 9-slide project closeout deck. Slide order: (1) Title + 1-sentence summary, (2) What we set out to do, (3) What we actually delivered, (4) Outcomes vs. success criteria — honest scoring, (5) What worked — and we'd repeat, (6) What didn't work — and we'd change, (7) Ongoing work + steady-state owner, (8) Knowledge transfer + documentation, (9) Acknowledgments + thanks. </task> <constraints> - Slide 4 (outcomes vs. criteria) must score honestly — sandbagged closeouts lose institutional learning - Slide 7 (steady-state owner) prevents project work from going homeless after closeout - Slide 9 (acknowledgments) names specific people, not the generic team </constraints> <format> Single Markdown artifact. H2 per slide. Markdown tables for outcomes scoring. Speaker notes in italics. </format>