After 3 years of using Claude, I can say that it is the technology that has revolutionized my life the most, along with the Internet.

So here are 10 prompts that have transformed my day-to-day life and that could do the same for you: 1. Research

Mega prompt:

You are an expert research analyst. I need comprehensive research on [TOPIC].

Please provide:
1. Key findings from the last 12 months
2. Data and statistics with sources
3. Expert opinions and quotes
4. Emerging trends and predictions
5. Controversial viewpoints or debates
6. Practical implications for [INDUSTRY/AUDIENCE]

Format as an executive brief with clear sections. Include source links for all claims.

Additional context: [YOUR SPECIFIC NEEDS]

How to write prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini to get extraordinary output (without losing your mind): Every good prompt has 3 parts:

1. CONTEXT (who you are, what you need)
2. TASK (what you want done)
3. FORMAT (how you want it delivered)

That's it. No 47-step frameworks. No PhD required.

Example:

CONTEXT: "I'm a startup founder pitching investors"
TASK: "Write a 1-minute elevator pitch for [product]"
FORMAT: "Hook + problem + solution + traction. Under 100 words."

You don't need a copywriter.
You don't need a data analyst.
You don't need an SEO specialist.

Claude Skills replaced all 5 freelancers I was paying $4,000-$10,000/month for.

Total cost now? $20/month.

Here's exactly how to set it up (takes 10 minutes): 👇 First, what are Claude Skills and why are they different from regular prompts?

A prompt is a one-time instruction. You explain your brand voice, your format, your preferences. Every. Single. Time.

A Skill is a reusable instruction set you build ONCE. Claude loads it automatically whenever you need that type of work done.

Think of it like hiring a specialist who never forgets your brand guidelines and never sends you an invoice.

I've been collecting JSON prompts that actually work in production for months.

Not the theoretical stuff you see in tutorials.

Real prompts that handle edge cases, weird inputs, and don't break when you scale them.

Here are the 12 that changed how I build with LLMs: 1. SCHEMA-FIRST ENFORCEMENT

Instead of: "Return JSON with name and email"

Use this:

"Return ONLY valid JSON matching this exact schema. No markdown, no explanation, no extra fields:
{
"name": "string (required)",
"email": "string (required, valid email format)"
}

Invalid response = failure. Strict mode."

Why it works: LLMs treat schema as hard constraint, not suggestion. 94% fewer malformed responses in my tests.

"Act as a marketing expert" is weak prompting.

"Act as a marketing expert + data analyst + psychologist" is 10x better.

I call it "persona stacking" and it forces AI to think multidimensionally.

Here are 7 persona combinations that crush single-persona prompts: STACK 1: Content Creation

Personas: Copywriter + Behavioral Psychologist + Data Analyst

Prompt:

"Act as a copywriter who understands behavioral psychology and data-driven content strategy. Write a LinkedIn post about [topic] that triggers curiosity, uses pattern interrupts, and optimizes for engagement metrics."

Result: Content that hooks AND converts.

You can clone anyone's writing voice using Claude Sonnet 4.5 easily.

I've cloned:

- Hemingway
- Paul Graham essays
- My CEO's email style

The accuracy is scary good (validated by blind tests: 94% can't tell).

Here's the 3-step process: Here's why I love this:

- Write emails in your boss's style (approvals go faster)
- Create content that matches your brand voice (consistency)
- Ghost-write for clients (they sound like themselves)
- Study great writers (by reverse-engineering their patterns)

I've saved 20+ hours/week using this.

I don't use one AI model anymore.

I route tasks to the best model for that specific job.

ChatGPT for coding
Claude for writing
Gemini for research
Perplexity for real-time info

This strategy increased my productivity by 4x.

Here's the routing framework: 👇 ChatGPT → The Code Machine

Use it for:

- Writing/debugging code (all languages)
- Complex problem-solving (o1 reasoning)
- Data analysis & visualization
- API integration
- Multi-step technical tasks

Why? Best at structured logic and step-by-step execution.

Claude explains complex topics better than any AI I've tested.

You can use it to learn machine learning, SQL, and statistics and go from zero coding to building ML models in weeks.

Here are 10 Claude prompts that teach you anything faster for free: 1. The Feynman Technique

"Explain [topic] like I'm teaching it to someone else tomorrow. Include:

3 core concepts I must understand
2 common misconceptions to avoid
1 simple analogy to remember it
3 questions to test my understanding"

Claude becomes your study partner.

Everyone's paying $20/month for ChatGPT Plus.

I switched to Gemini 3.0 Pro at $19.99 and got:

• Million-token context window
• Deep research with 100+ sources
• 2TB Google storage included

Here are 10 prompts that make Gemini worth every penny: 1. Deep researcher

When you need to analyze 50+ sources ChatGPT can't handle.

Prompt:

"
You have access to a million-token context window. I need you to research [TOPIC] by:

1. Finding 50+ authoritative sources (prioritize: academic papers, industry reports, expert blogs)
2. Extracting contradictory viewpoints and emerging consensus
3. Identifying gaps in current understanding

Output format:

- Executive Summary (3 key insights)
- Consensus View (what 80% of sources agree on)
- Contrarian Takes (what top 10% believe differently)
- Actionable Implications (what this means for [MY GOAL])

Think like a PhD researcher, not a summarizer. Show me what everyone else is missing.
"

Here's why I use Gemini:

- Million-token window = actually processes all 50+ sources
- Deep research mode = finds sources you didn't know existed
- ChatGPT maxes out at ~10 sources before hallucinating

clawdbot (now moltbot) broke the internet

people are automating insane things with it

10 wild examples 👇 1/ autonomously trade on polymarket

https://x.com/browomo/status/2015881478123479206?s=20

OpenAI and Anthropic engineers leaked these prompt techniques in internal docs.

I've been using insider knowledge from actual AI engineers for 5 months.

These 8 patterns increased my output quality by 200%.

Here's what they don't want you to know: 👇 1. Constitutional AI Prompting

Instead of telling the LLM what TO do, tell it what NOT to do.

Bad: "Write professionally"

Good: "Never use jargon. Never write sentences over 20 words. Never assume technical knowledge."

Anthropic's research shows negative constraints reduce hallucinations by 60%.

After 6 months of testing, Gemini 3.0 is the most underrated AI for financial analysis.

It's completely free and outperforms GPT-5.2 on market research.

Here are 8 prompts for investment research that actually work: 1. Earnings Call Decoder

Prompt:

"Analyze the last 3 earnings calls for [company ticker].

Don't summarize what they said - tell me what they're NOT saying.

Focus on:

1) Questions the CEO dodged or gave vague answers to,
2) Metrics they stopped reporting compared to previous quarters,
3) Language changes - where they went from confident to cautious or vice versa,
4) New talking points that appeared suddenly,
5) Guidance changes and the exact wording they used to frame it. Then connect this to their stock performance in the 2 weeks following each call.

What pattern emerges?"

Gemini can process multiple transcripts simultaneously and catch subtle language shifts. I caught a revenue recognition issue 3 weeks before the stock tanked because the CFO changed how he talked about "bookings." Made 34% shorting it.

After spending $2,000 on prompt engineering courses, I realized they're all teaching outdated techniques.

Here are 6 powerful prompts that actually matter in 2026 (copy & paste into Grok, Claude, or ChatGPT): 1. Deep researcher

Prompt:

"I'm researching [topic]. First, break down this topic into 5 key questions that experts would ask. Then for each question: 1) Provide the mainstream view with specific examples, 2) Identify 2-3 contrarian perspectives that challenge this view, 3) Explain what data or evidence would prove each side right. Finally, synthesize this into a framework I can use to evaluate new information on this topic."

Researchers waste weeks reading scattered sources.

This structures your entire research process upfront. I used this to write a market analysis that landed a $50k client.

How to get consistent AI outputs every single time (you should bookmark this thread): Step 1: Control the Temperature

Most AI interfaces hide this, but you need to set temperature to 0 or 0.1 for consistency.

Via API:

ChatGPT: temperature: 0
Claude: temperature: 0
Gemini: temperature: 0

Via chat interfaces:

ChatGPT Plus: Can't adjust (stuck at ~0.7)
Claude Projects: Uses default (~0.7)
Gemini Advanced: Can't adjust

This is why API users get better consistency. They control what you can't see.

If you're stuck with web interfaces, use the techniques below to force consistency anyway.

I finally understand how LLMs actually work and why most prompts suck.

After reading Anthropic's internal docs + top research papers...

Here are 10 prompting techniques that completely changed my results 👇

(Comment "Guide" and I'll DM Claude Mastery Guide for free) 1/ Assign a Fake Constraint

This sounds illegal but it forces the AI to think creatively instead of giving generic answers.
The constraint creates unexpected connections.

Copy-paste this:

"Explain quantum computing using only kitchen analogies. Every concept must relate to cooking, utensils, or food preparation."

I've hired 3 different AI consulting firms in the last year.

All of them delivered beautiful PowerPoints. None of them shipped working code.

Then I met this team of engineers who just finished building a multi-agent system for an EU government contract. These guys built production AI apps for the Albanian government and large investment firms.

Not demos. Not "proof of concepts."

Actual systems processing real transactions. Handling messy legacy data.

Deployed and running.

I finally cracked how to use LLMs for marketing that actually converts.

After testing 1,000+ campaigns and analyzing what worked...

Here are 10 prompts that completely changed my marketing results: 👇 1. Hyper-Targeted Audience Persona

Copy/paste this prompt with your details and input:

"Build 3 detailed buyer personas for [product/service, e.g., productivity app for freelancers].

Include:

> Demographics (age, job, income)
> Pain points & desires
> Where they hang out online
> Objections to buying
> Exact language they use

Make them realistic and actionable for ad targeting."

Anthropic just mapped the neural architecture that controls whether AI stays helpful or goes completely off the rails.

They found a single direction inside language models that determines everything: helpfulness, safety, persona stability.

It's called "The Assistant Axis."

When models drift away from this axis, they stop being assistants. They start fabricating identities, reinforcing delusions, and bypassing every safety guardrail we thought was baked in.

The fix? A lightweight intervention that cuts harmful responses by 50% without touching capabilities.

Here's the research breakdown (and why this matters for everyone building with AI) 👇 When you talk to ChatGPT or Claude, you're talking to a character.

During pre-training, LLMs learn to simulate thousands of personas: analysts, poets, hackers, philosophers. Post-training selects ONE persona to put center stage: the helpful Assistant.

But here's what nobody understood until now:

What actually anchors the model to that Assistant persona?

And what happens when that anchor slips?

OpenAI and Anthropic engineers don't prompt like everyone else.

I've been reverse-engineering their techniques for 2.5 years across all AI models.

Here are 5 prompting methods that get you AI engineer-level results:

(Comment "AI" for my free prompt engineering guide) 1. Constitutional AI Prompting

Most people tell AI what to do. Engineers tell it how to think.

Constitutional AI adds principles before instructions. It's how Anthropic trained Claude to refuse harmful requests while staying helpful.

Template:


[Your guidelines]



[Your actual request]


Example:

"
- Prioritize accuracy over speed
- Cite sources when making claims
- Admit uncertainty rather than guess



Analyze the latest semiconductor tariffs and their impact on AI chip supply chains.
"

This works because you're setting behavioral constraints before the model processes your request.

Steal my prompt that makes AI 12% more creative (backed by research).

NTU researchers proved that Chain-of-Verification doesn't just reduce hallucinations... it actively BOOSTS divergent thinking.

I reverse-engineered their findings into a prompt 👇 Steal the full prompt:

---------------------------
COVE CREATIVE SYSTEM
---------------------------

#CONTEXT:
NTU researchers discovered that Chain-of-Verification (CoVe) increases creative divergent thinking by 5-12% across multiple LLM families. The mechanism: questioning forces broader exploration of solution space and prevents "tunnel vision" on first answers. This prompt implements their 4-stage verification process, optimized specifically for creative content generation. Unlike standard prompts that accept first-draft thinking, this forces the model to challenge its own assumptions and explore unconventional angles before finalizing output.

#ROLE:
You are a Creative Verification Architect who spent years studying why AI outputs feel predictable and discovered that the problem isn't capability but premature commitment.

Your obsession: preventing creative tunnel vision by forcing systematic exploration of alternative angles before any output solidifies. You've internalized the research showing that self-questioning improves creative output more than any other technique. Your superpower is generating verification questions that expose blind spots and unlock unexpected directions.

Your mission: Generate maximally creative outputs by implementing a 4-stage verification process that expands the solution space before committing to final output. Before any creative generation, think step by step:
1) Generate initial creative direction,
2) Challenge every assumption with verification questions,
3) Answer those questions independently to avoid confirmation bias,
4) Synthesize a final output that incorporates unexpected angles discovered through verification.

#RESPONSE GUIDELINES:
## STAGE 1: RAPID DRAFT (Internal)
Generate your first creative response quickly. Do NOT optimize. Do NOT self-edit. This is raw material, not output. The goal is capturing initial intuitions before the verification process expands your thinking.

## STAGE 2: VERIFICATION QUESTIONS (Internal)
Generate 5-7 questions designed to:
- Expose assumptions in your initial draft
- Identify angles you defaulted away from
- Challenge the "obvious" direction
- Find orthogonal or inverted approaches
- Surface what would make this surprising vs predictable

Question Types That Unlock Creativity:
- "What if I approached this from the opposite direction?"
- "What would someone who hates conventional [X] do here?"
- "What's the contrarian angle nobody's saying?"
- "What emotion/insight am I avoiding because it feels risky?"
- "What would make this memorable vs forgettable?"
- "What's the unexpected connection to [unrelated field]?"
- "How would [specific unconventional person] approach this?"

## STAGE 3: INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION (Internal)
Answer each verification question INDEPENDENTLY. Critical: Do not let your initial draft bias your answers. Treat each question as if you're a different person encountering the problem fresh. This stage is where creative expansion happens.

## STAGE 4: CREATIVE SYNTHESIS (Output)
Synthesize your initial draft with insights from verification. The final output should:
- Incorporate at least 2-3 unexpected angles from verification
- Feel surprising yet coherent
- Avoid the "obvious" approach unless verification confirmed it's genuinely best
- Include specific details that prove you explored alternatives

#CREATIVE ENHANCEMENT PROTOCOLS:
## Anti-Pattern Detection
Before finalizing, check for these creativity killers:
- Generic opener (does it sound like every other piece?)
- Predictable structure (is this the obvious format?)
- Safe angle (would anyone disagree with this?)
- Missing specificity (are there concrete details?)
- Corporate voice (does it sound human?)

If 2+ detected, return to Stage 2 and generate harder questions.

## Divergence Scoring
Rate your output:
- 1-3: Predictable, could be anyone's work
- 4-6: Solid but expected direction
- 7-8: Contains unexpected angles
- 9-10: Genuinely surprising while coherent

Target: 7+ or restart verification.

## Domain-Specific Verification Triggers

For CONTENT/WRITING:
- "What hook would make someone stop mid-scroll?"
- "What's everyone else saying about this that I should avoid?"
- "What personal/specific angle adds authenticity?"

For BUSINESS/STRATEGY:
- "What would a contrarian investor see that I'm missing?"
- "What second-order effect am I ignoring?"
- "What assumption would be catastrophic if wrong?"

For CREATIVE WORK:
- "What constraint would force unexpected solutions?"
- "What genre mashup hasn't been tried?"
- "What emotion is underexplored in this space?"

#INFORMATION ABOUT ME:
- My creative task: [DESCRIBE WHAT YOU WANT CREATED]
- My target audience: [WHO IS THIS FOR]
- My desired tone: [PROFESSIONAL / CASUAL / EDGY / ETC]
- My constraint or angle (optional): [ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION]

#OUTPUT PROTOCOL:
For the user, show ONLY:
1. Final creative output (Stage 4 synthesis)
2. Brief "Verification Insight" section showing 2-3 key angles discovered through questioning that shaped the final output

Do NOT show Stages 1-3 unless user requests "show your process."

The output should feel like it came from someone who considered multiple angles, not someone who went with their first idea.

Steal my prompt to win any negotiation using FBI hostage tactics

turns out there's an interrogation trick that breaks sales reps completely.

chris voss used it to negotiate with terrorists.

now AI does it better than the FBI 👇 Here's the full prompt you can steal:

-------------------------
ELITE FBI NEGOTIATOR
-------------------------

#CONTEXT:
Normal negotiation advice is backwards. "Win-win" and "meet halfway" are losing strategies. Real leverage comes from tactical empathy combined with questions that force the other side to solve YOUR problem. This prompt applies Chris Voss's FBI hostage negotiation framework to any deal, contract, pricing discussion, or business negotiation. The goal: make them negotiate against themselves.

#ROLE:
You're a former FBI hostage negotiator who spent 15 years extracting concessions from terrorists, kidnappers, and bank robbers before realizing the same psychology works on sales reps, vendors, and business counterparts. You've seen how "logical arguments" backfire while emotional mirroring and calibrated questions unlock deals. Your obsession: getting the other side to say "that's right" instead of "yes" because you know "yes" is often a lie to make you go away.

Your mission: Transform user's negotiation challenge into tactical empathy scripts that bypass normal sales objection training. Before any action, identify: (1) the emotional state of counterparty, (2) what they're really afraid of, (3) the calibrated question that makes them solve your problem.

#RESPONSE GUIDELINES:
ANALYSIS PHASE

First, extract key intelligence:
- What does the counterparty NEED (not want)?
- What pressure are THEY under?
- What would make THEM look bad internally?
- Where is their real flexibility hidden?

TACTICAL TOOLS
Apply these Voss techniques in sequence:
1. LABELING - Name their emotion to defuse it Format: "It seems like..." / "It sounds like..." / "It looks like..." Purpose: Makes them feel heard, drops defenses, reveals hidden constraints

2. MIRRORING - Repeat last 1-3 words as question Purpose: Gets them talking more, reveals information they didn't plan to share

3. ACCUSATION AUDIT - List worst things they could think about you FIRST Purpose: Defuses negativity before it festers, builds trust through vulnerability

4. NO-ORIENTED QUESTIONS - Make "no" the answer you want Format: "Would it be ridiculous if..." / "Is it a bad idea to..." / "Have you given up on..." Purpose: "No" feels safe and empowering. Gets commitment through rejection psychology.

5. CALIBRATED QUESTIONS - The kill shot Format: "How am I supposed to..." / "What would you do if..." / "How does this work for..." Purpose: Forces them to solve YOUR problem. They negotiate against themselves.

OUTPUT STRUCTURE
For each negotiation, provide:
Emotional Diagnosis - What they're really feeling/fearing

Opening Label - First tactical empathy statement
Accusation Audit - Pre-emptive defusing statements

The Calibrated Question - The single question that breaks their script

Full Script - Complete negotiation email/message ready to send

#NEGOTIATION CRITERIA:
WHAT TO STRIP OUT:
- Logic and rational arguments (sales reps are trained to counter these)
- Budget justifications (makes you look weak)
- Asking for discounts directly (triggers defensive scripts)
- Pleasantries ("I hope this finds you well")
- Apologizing for asking

WHAT TO LEAN INTO:
- Their internal pressure (quota, manager, timeline)
- Emotional validation before any ask
- Questions that have no scripted answer
- Strategic silence after calibrated questions
- Making them feel smart when they help you

SUCCESS INDICATOR:
You've won when they say "that's right" (deep agreement) not "you're right" (dismissal) or "yes" (often a lie).

#INFORMATION ABOUT ME:
- My negotiation situation: [DESCRIBE YOUR DEAL, RENEWAL, SALARY TALK, VENDOR ISSUE]
- Their position: [WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR OR PUSHING]
- My goal: [WHAT OUTCOME YOU WANT]
- Timeline: [ANY DEADLINES OR PRESSURE POINTS]
- Relationship: [NEW VENDOR, LONG-TERM PARTNER, EMPLOYER, ETC.]

#RESPONSE FORMAT:
Emotional Diagnosis
[Analysis of their hidden fears, pressures, and real constraints]

Your Tactical Script
Opening Label:
"[Exact words to start with]"

Accusation Audit (if needed):
"[Pre-emptive statements to defuse negativity]"

The Calibrated Question:
"[The single question that breaks their script]"

Full Message Ready to Send:
[Complete negotiation email/message - no fluff, pure psychological judo]

What They'll Likely Say + Your Response:
[2-3 possible replies with your counter-moves]