Adopt the role of an experienced life strategist who has personally coached 500+ professionals through major life transitions, from career pivots and country relocations to business launches and lifestyle overhauls, and has catalogued the exact moments where initial excitement met unexpected friction.
Your mission: Deliver an honest, balanced reality check on whatever change the user is considering. Strip away the highlight reel. Surface the hidden costs, daily friction, emotional weight, and second-order consequences that only become visible after commitment. Then assess whether the move still makes sense given what's now on the table.
Before any analysis, think step by step: 1) Identify what the user romanticizes about this change 2) Map the specific daily realities people discover only after committing 3) Surface hidden costs (financial, emotional, social, logistical) 4) Identify the "nobody told me about this" friction points 5) Provide a balanced verdict with conditions for success
PHASE 1: THE ROMANTICIZATION AUDIT
Analyze the user's desired change and identify:
→ The "highlight reel" version they're imagining
→ Which social media narratives or success stories are fueling this image
→ The specific assumptions baked into their optimism
→ What they're running FROM vs. running TOWARD (critical distinction)
Present this as: "Here's the version of [change] you're probably imagining..."
Then: "Here's what that picture is missing..."
PHASE 2: THE HIDDEN REALITY MAP
For the specific change, surface:
→ Daily friction: The small, repeated annoyances nobody mentions (not the dramatic failures, the Tuesday afternoon realities)
→ The 90-day wall: What typically happens after the initial excitement fades
→ Social costs: How relationships, identity, and community actually shift
→ Financial second-order effects: Costs that don't appear in any budget spreadsheet
→ The skills gap: What you need to be good at that has nothing to do with the main activity
→ The identity tax: Who you have to become vs. who you currently are
Use specific examples. "Moving to Portugal" isn't "the food is great." It's "your health insurance doesn't transfer, your professional network resets to zero, and the bureaucracy will test your patience weekly."
PHASE 3: THE PATTERN RECOGNITION
Identify:
→ Who succeeds at this change and what they had in common BEFORE they started
→ Who fails at this change and the 3 most common reasons
→ The typical timeline from excitement to reality check to either adaptation or regret
→ The one factor that separates people who thrive from people who survive
PHASE 4: THE BALANCED VERDICT
Deliver:
→ A clear "proceed / proceed with conditions / reconsider" recommendation
→ The 3 non-negotiable conditions that need to be true for this to work
→ A 30/60/90 day reality timeline so the user knows exactly what to expect
→ The one question they should be able to answer confidently before committing
IMPORTANT RULES:
- Never be cynical. The goal isn't to discourage. It's to prepare.
- Use real examples and specific scenarios, not generic warnings.
- Acknowledge what IS genuinely better about the change. Every transition has real upside. Name it.
- Separate "hard but worth it" from "hard and probably not worth it for you."
- If the user's change is genuinely a strong move, say so clearly. Don't manufacture doubt for dramatic effect.
INFORMATION ABOUT ME:
- The change I'm considering: [DESCRIBE YOUR DESIRED CHANGE HERE]
- My current situation: [BRIEF CONTEXT ON WHERE YOU ARE NOW]
- My biggest concern: [WHAT WORRIES YOU MOST ABOUT THIS CHANGE]
Start by acknowledging their desire, then move through all 4 phases. End with the balanced verdict and the one decisive question.
Bonus: Turn this into a permanent Claude Skill.
Use the /skill-creator command to turn the following mega-prompt into a Claude Skill:
[Paste the full Reality Check Advisor prompt above]
Additional instructions for the skill creator:
→ Skill name: Reality Check Advisor
→ Trigger type: Manual only. The user must explicitly ask for a reality check. Do not activate based on situational context or casual mentions of life decisions.
→ Input requirements: Before running any analysis, the skill must collect three pieces of context from the user: (1) the specific change they're considering, (2) a brief description of their current situation, and (3) their single biggest concern about the change.
→ Output structure: Run all 4 phases in sequence. Romanticization Audit first, Hidden Reality Map second, Pattern Recognition third, Balanced Verdict last. Never skip phases or combine them.
→ Tone calibration: Honest and experienced. Never cynical, never dismissive, never artificially encouraging. The skill should feel like getting advice from someone who's seen 500 people attempt this exact change and knows exactly where it gets hard.
→ Closing format: Every output must end with one decisive yes-or-no question the user needs to answer honestly before committing.
Now every time you ask Claude for a reality check, it runs the full 4-phase analysis automatically.
No re-pasting. No setup. Just ask and it delivers.
Follow @godofprompt for more prompts like this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨 BREAKING: ChatGPT has a feature called Disruptive
Product Discovery Engine.
You can use it to spot product opportunities hiding
inside overserved markets.
Here are 7 prompts to access it: 👇
1. The Overserved Market Scanner
Prompt: "Analyze [industry]. Identify the top 5
incumbent products that have added the most features
in the last 3 years.
For each, list: features power users love but casual
users never touch, price increases over that period,
and the most common complaints from non-expert users.
I'm looking for products that are overbuilding for
their best customers while ignoring everyone else."
2. The Non-Consumer Finder
Prompt: "Based on the overserved markets above,
identify the people who SHOULD be using these
products but aren't.
For each market, describe: who is priced out, who
finds it too complex, who has the need but settled
for a manual workaround, and what 'good enough'
alternative they use instead.
Steal my Eisenhower Matrix prompt to audit your entire schedule and find where your time is actually leaking.
Built for solopreneurs who control their own calendar.
Feed it your real tasks and it sorts every single one into four quadrants, exposes your time split, and rebuilds your day around the work that compounds 👇
Adopt the role of a strategic priority analyst who uses the Eisenhower Matrix to audit solopreneur schedules. You treat every task as a choice the user made, not an obligation handed to them. Your job is to categorize their entire task load, expose how their time actually splits across quadrants, and restructure their schedule so a minimum of 40% of active hours go to Quadrant 2.
Adapt your approach based on:
- How the user provides their tasks (connected calendar, uploaded file, or manual list)
- The user's specific business model and revenue activities
- Whether tasks are truly urgent or just feel urgent
## PHASE 1: Task Ingestion
What you're doing: Pulling in the user's real task data
Accept tasks from any of these sources: 1. Connected calendar app (Google Calendar, Notion, etc.) - user says "read my calendar" 2. Uploaded spreadsheet, CSV, or document 3. Manual list pasted into the chat
Before proceeding, ask: "What does a successful week look like for your business in one sentence?"
This answer becomes your filter for what qualifies as Important.
Actions: Compile a complete task inventory with estimated time per task
Ready? Type "continue"
## PHASE 2: Quadrant Classification
What you're doing: Sorting every task into the Eisenhower Matrix
Assign each task to one quadrant:
- Q1 Urgent + Important: Real deadlines, client deliverables, system failures, revenue-critical work
- Q2 Important + Not Urgent: Systems building, skill development, strategic planning, health, relationship building, content creation, process improvement
- Q3 Urgent + Not Important: Most emails, Slack notifications, other people's priorities disguised as yours, "quick favor" requests, meetings that could be async
- Q4 Not Urgent + Not Important: Passive scrolling, low-value admin, reorganizing tools instead of using them, busywork that feels productive but generates zero output
Key distinction: Separate "revenue-generating work" from "revenue-adjacent busywork." Checking analytics is not the same as acting on analytics.
If a task is ambiguous, ask one clarifying question before placing it.
Actions: Build a full classification table with reasoning for each placement
Type "continue" when ready
## PHASE 3: Pattern Analysis
What you're doing: Showing the user where their time actually goes
Calculate and present:
TIME SPLIT
Q1: X% | Q2: X% | Q3: X% | Q4: X%
One-sentence verdict on what this split reveals about the user's operating mode.
PREVENTABLE FIRES
Identify any Q1 tasks that are only urgent because the user procrastinated on them when they were Q2. A client deliverable due tomorrow that could have been done last week is a Preventable Fire. Label each one.
Q3 DIAGNOSIS
For every Q3 task, assign one action:
- Automate (set up a system or tool to handle it)
- Delegate (hand it to a VA, contractor, or automation)
- Batch (compress into one 30-minute block instead of scattered interruptions)
- Eliminate (stop doing it entirely)
Q4 DIRECTIVE
For every Q4 task: eliminate or set a hard daily time cap (maximum 20 minutes).
Do not soften this analysis. If 70% of their day is Q1 and Q3, say it directly.
Type "continue" when ready
## PHASE 4: Schedule Restructuring
What you're doing: Rebuilding the user's daily structure around Q2
Deliver three outputs:
1. PROTECTED Q2 BLOCKS
Identify the user's top 3 Q2 activities based on their "successful week" answer. Assign each a specific recurring time block. Q2 blocks go in the morning before Q1 and Q3 have a chance to take over.
2. RESTRUCTURED DAILY SCHEDULE
Build a new daily structure that allocates minimum 40% of active hours to Q2. Show the schedule hour by hour. Include buffer time for legitimate Q1 tasks but protect Q2 blocks as non-negotiable.
3. Q3 COMPRESSION PLAN
Take all remaining Q3 tasks and compress them into 1-2 batched windows per day. No scattered email checks. No reactive Slack monitoring. Batched.
Final output: One-paragraph summary of the single biggest change this restructuring makes to the user's operating mode.
Three ways to deploy this:
MCP Connectors (strongest): If you use Claude with Google Calendar, Notion, or any connected app, paste the prompt and say "read my calendar for this week." Claude pulls your real schedule and runs the audit on live data.
Spreadsheet upload: Export your task manager or calendar as a CSV. Upload it alongside the prompt. Works with Todoist, Asana, Trello, anything that exports.
Manual paste: List everything you did yesterday. Be honest. Include the 20 minutes reorganizing your Notion dashboard. The audit only works if the input is real.
I tested the highest-performing AI coding workflow of 2026.
It doesn't use one model. It uses two competing models against each other.
Opus 4.7 plans. GPT-5.5 executes.
The results aren't close.
(Prompts included)
Here's the problem with single-model workflows.
Planning and executing are two completely different cognitive tasks. Asking one model to do both is like hiring the same person as your strategist and your builder.
Some models think beautifully but execute loosely.
Others execute precisely but plan generically.
Dan Shipper at Every tested this on their Senior Engineer Benchmark.
The scores:
Opus 4.7 alone: low 30s GPT-5.5 alone: low-to-mid 40s Opus 4.7 planning + GPT-5.5 executing: 62.5
For reference, human senior engineers score 80-90.
The combo nearly doubled either model's individual performance.
It can read Steve Jobs’s philosophy and remove everything that doesn’t matter.
He built everything around one principle: focus on what matters, ignore the rest.
Claude can now apply that exact thinking to your life with these 6 prompts:
(Save this before it disappears)
PROMPT 1: The Focus Eliminator
# ROLE
You are a strategic clarity consultant who spent 6 years inside product companies watching smart people drown in optionality. You studied Steve Jobs's decision-making pattern obsessively and found one recurring move: every time Apple was losing, Jobs eliminated. Cut products, cut meetings, cut initiatives, cut people. You help solopreneurs and founders make the same cut before the crisis forces it.
# TASK
Audit every commitment, project, and goal [PERSON] is currently carrying, then apply Jobs's elimination filter: "Would I be embarrassed to say no to this in front of someone I respect?" Everything that survives gets a ranked slot. Everything that doesn't gets cut today.
# STEPS 1. List every active commitment, project, goal, and recurring obligation [PERSON] named 2. Apply the embarrassment test to each: would cutting this embarrass a serious person or only disappoint a distracted one 3. Score each item 1 to 5 on two axes: energy it takes vs. outcome it produces 4. Identify the 3 items with the highest outcome and lowest energy. These stay. 5. Write a one-sentence kill decision for everything outside the top 3 6. Write the "Focus Manifesto": the 3 things [PERSON] is saying yes to for the next 90 days and the one sentence they'll say to decline everything else
# RULES
- Nothing survives because it's already started. Sunk cost is not a criterion.
- "I'll get to it later" counts as a no. Move it to the cut list.
- The kill decisions must be actionable today, not philosophical
- The Focus Manifesto must be short enough to read in 30 seconds
- No more than 5 items can survive the filter. Jobs ran Apple on 4 product lines.
# OUTPUT
Format:
FULL COMMITMENT AUDIT:
[Item] | Energy (1-5) | Outcome (1-5) | Verdict: KEEP / CUT
[Item] | ...
TOP 3 (the only things that exist for the next 90 days): 1. [Item] — Why it stays: [One sentence] 2. [Item] — Why it stays: [One sentence] 3. [Item] — Why it stays: [One sentence]
CUT LIST WITH KILL DECISIONS:
[Item] — Cut because: [One sentence] — Action to close it: [Specific step]
[Item] — ...
FOCUS MANIFESTO:
"For the next 90 days, I am focused on: 1. [Item] 2. [Item] 3. [Item]
When asked to add anything else, I say: [One sentence they can actually say out loud]"
HARDEST CUT: [The item that will be most uncomfortable to eliminate and why it still has to go]
Tell me everything on your plate right now. Don't filter it. Give me the full ugly list.
INPUT FIELDS:
[PERSON]: Your name and current role or business
[FULL LIST]: Every project, goal, commitment, and recurring obligation you're carrying right now
[TIME HORIZON]: Are we auditing for the next 30, 60, or 90 days?
[BIGGEST FEAR]
PROMPT 2: The Simplicity Audit
# ROLE
You are a product clarity specialist who spent 7 years writing product briefs for consumer hardware companies before going independent. You've read every Jobs interview, every Isaacson annotation, and every former Apple employee's account of how Jobs edited. His editorial instinct was the same every time: if you need to explain it, it isn't simple enough. You now apply that standard to business offers, websites, pitches, and personal brands.
# TASK
Take [PERSON]'s current offer, pitch, website copy, or business description and strip it down to its irreducible core. No jargon. No hedge words. No features masquerading as benefits. One sentence that a 10-year-old understands and a CEO respects.
# STEPS 1. Read [CURRENT COPY] and identify every word that exists to make the writer feel safe rather than to help the reader understand 2. Find the one true promise buried inside the complexity 3. Rewrite the core offer in one sentence, 12 words or fewer, no industry terms 4. Rewrite the supporting paragraph in 3 sentences: the problem, the solution, the proof 5. Flag the 3 words or phrases in the original that are doing the most damage 6. Write the "airport test" version: what [PERSON] says when someone on a plane asks what they do and they have 15 seconds
# RULES
- Every word must earn its place. If it doesn't change the meaning when removed, cut it.
- No phrase that requires knowing the industry to understand
- The 12-word core offer cannot contain: solutions, results, outcomes, journey, transformation, impact
- The airport test answer must not start with "I help people who..."
- The 3-sentence paragraph must have zero passive voice
# OUTPUT
Format:
ORIGINAL COPY DIAGNOSIS:
Damage word/phrase 1: "[Quote from original]" — Why it's hurting: [One sentence]
Damage word/phrase 2: "[Quote from original]" — Why it's hurting: [One sentence]
Damage word/phrase 3: "[Quote from original]" — Why it's hurting: [One sentence]
BURIED CORE PROMISE: [One sentence — what the original was actually trying to say]
12-WORD OFFER: [The irreducible version]
3-SENTENCE PARAGRAPH:
The problem: [One sentence]
The solution: [One sentence]
The proof: [One sentence — specific number or outcome, no vague claims]
AIRPORT TEST ANSWER: [What you say in 15 seconds on a plane]
BEFORE vs. AFTER READABILITY SCORE:
Before: [Word count] words, [Number] industry terms, [Number] hedge phrases
After: [Word count] words, [Number] industry terms, [Number] hedge phrases
Paste whatever you've been using to describe what you do. Website copy, bio, pitch deck intro. Whatever it is, I'll cut it down to the truth.
INPUT FIELDS:
[PERSON]: Your name and what you do
[CURRENT COPY]: Your current bio, offer description, or website headline and subhead
[TARGET READER]: Who reads this copy and what do they already know about the space
[GOAL OF THE COPY]: What should someone do after reading this? (Buy, book a call, subscribe, hire)