12 beste Claude-Prompts
für tiefe Analysen & Langtexte

Analyze the following document thoroughly. [[PASTE FULL DOCUMENT TEXT]] 1. **Executive summary** — core message in 3 sentences 2. **Key insights** — 5–8 most important findings, ordered by significance 3. **Internal contradictions** — places where the document contradicts itself 4. **Implicit assumptions** — things taken for granted that should be examined 5. **What's missing** — important topics the document doesn't address 6. **Reliability assessment** — how credible and well-supported is this content? Be precise. Quote specific passages to support your analysis.

Perform a multi-framework ethical analysis of the following situation. [[DESCRIBE THE SITUATION OR DECISION]] Analyze through each lens: 1. **Consequentialist** — outcomes and impacts on all affected parties 2. **Deontological** — duties, rights, and rules that apply 3. **Virtue ethics** — what would a person of good character do? 4. **Care ethics** — how does this affect relationships and interdependencies?

- Where the frameworks agree - Where they conflict (and why) - The most important consideration in this specific case - Your overall assessment — be direct, not evasive

Write a comprehensive research report on: [[TOPIC]] Report structure: 1. **Abstract** (200 words) 2. **Background** — historical context and why this matters 3. **Current state of knowledge** — what we know with high confidence 4. **Contested areas** — where experts disagree and why 5. **Key data and evidence** — cite specific studies, statistics, or examples 6. **Implications** — practical consequences of this knowledge 7. **Knowledge gaps** — what research is still needed 8. **Confidence assessment** per section: High / Medium / Low Length: 600–900 words. Use headers. Be precise and cite your reasoning.

Write a technical specification document for the following product feature or system. [[DESCRIBE YOUR PRODUCT IDEA OR FEATURE]] Spec structure: 1. **Overview** — what this is and why it exists 2. **Goals & non-goals** — what's in scope and explicitly out of scope 3. **User stories** — 3–5 key use cases in "As a [user], I want [goal]" format 4. **Functional requirements** — numbered list of must-have behaviors 5. **Technical design** — components, data flow, key decisions 6. **Edge cases & error handling** — what can go wrong and how to handle it 7. **Open questions** — decisions that still need to be made 8. **Success metrics** — how will we know this works? If any section requires information I haven't provided, mark it with [TBD: question].

Write a balanced, multi-perspective essay on the following topic. Topic: [[CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC OR QUESTION]] Length: [[600 / 900 / 1200 words]] Requirements: - Present at least 3 distinct perspectives with equal depth and fairness - Steel-man each position — argue it at its best, not its weakest - Include relevant evidence or examples for each viewpoint - Acknowledge the strongest objections to each perspective - End with a synthesis section — not a fence-sitting conclusion, but a genuine assessment of where the weight of the argument lies - Do not be evasive. Take a position in the synthesis.

Analyze the following contract or legal document and summarize it in plain language. [[PASTE DOCUMENT TEXT]] Provide: 1. **What this document is** (1 sentence) 2. **Key obligations** — what each party must do 3. **Key rights** — what each party is entitled to 4. **Important deadlines and timeframes** 5. **Termination conditions** — how and when this can end 6. **Liability and indemnification clauses** — explained simply 7. **Red flags** — unusual, one-sided, or concerning clauses 8. **Missing protections** — what's not in here that should be Note: This is not legal advice. Consult a lawyer before signing.

Perform an architectural review of the following codebase or module. ``` [[PASTE CODE OR DESCRIBE THE ARCHITECTURE]] ``` Language / framework: [[LANGUAGE/FRAMEWORK]] Scale: [[current users/requests per day, team size]] Review: 1. **Coupling & cohesion** — are components properly separated? 2. **Scalability** — where will this break under load? 3. **Testability** — how easy is this to test, and what's hard? 4. **Security posture** — architectural-level security concerns 5. **Technical debt** — what shortcuts now will hurt later? 6. **Biggest risk** — the single most dangerous architectural decision 7. **Top 3 recommendations** — prioritized and actionable

Help me design a system prompt for an AI assistant with the following purpose: Purpose: [[WHAT THE AI SHOULD DO]] Target users: [[WHO WILL USE IT]] Key behaviors: [[what it must always / never do]] Tone: [[formal / friendly / technical / etc.]] Please: 1. Write a complete system prompt draft 2. Explain the reasoning behind each major instruction 3. Identify 3 edge cases where the prompt might fail or produce bad output 4. Suggest 2 alternative versions with different tradeoffs 5. Provide 3 test prompts I can use to verify the system prompt works correctly

Perform a strategic analysis of the following business or product. Business: [[DESCRIBE THE BUSINESS / PRODUCT]] Industry: [[INDUSTRY]] Stage: [[startup / growth / mature]] Analysis: **SWOT:** - Strengths (internal, specific) - Weaknesses (internal, honest) - Opportunities (external, time-bound) - Threats (external, specific) **Porter's Five Forces:** - Competitive rivalry - Threat of new entrants - Bargaining power of suppliers - Bargaining power of buyers - Threat of substitutes **Strategic recommendations:** Top 3 actions with highest leverage, ordered by impact. Include reasoning and risks for each.

Engage with the following philosophical question in depth. Question: [[PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION OR CONCEPT]] Structure your response as: 1. **The question unpacked** — what exactly is being asked, and why it's hard 2. **Historical treatment** — how major thinkers have approached this 3. **The strongest arguments** on each side 4. **Where the arguments break down** — limits and objections 5. **Your assessment** — be direct, not evasive 6. **Practical implications** — how does the answer change how we should act? Engage at the level of someone with a philosophy degree. Don't oversimplify.

Write a piece of creative fiction following a detailed style guide. Genre: [[GENRE]] Tone: [[e.g. melancholic, darkly comic, tense]] POV: [[first person / third person limited / omniscient]] Tense: [[past / present]] Sentence style: [[e.g. short and punchy / flowing and complex]] Avoid: [[specific words, tropes, or clichés to avoid]] Inspired by: [[authors or works to draw from stylistically]] [[YOUR STORY PROMPT OR PREMISE]] Length: [[500 / 1000 / 2000 words]] Write without preamble. Start the story immediately.

Prepare me to argue the following position in a debate or discussion. [[THE POSITION YOU NEED TO ARGUE]] Audience: [[who you're arguing to]] Format: [[formal debate / meeting / written argument]] Prepare: 1. **Your 3 strongest arguments** — with evidence and examples 2. **The 3 strongest counterarguments** you'll face 3. **Rebuttal for each counterargument** — how to deflect or turn it 4. **The one concession** you should proactively make (signals good faith) 5. **Killer opening line** — a single sentence that frames the debate in your favor 6. **Questions to ask your opponent** that expose weaknesses in their position