Category: ai

  • How I Keep Copilot Cowork Sessions Alive with a requirements.md File

    How I Keep Copilot Cowork Sessions Alive with a requirements.md File

    Copilot Cowork is strong at creating files. Documents, markdown files, HTML files, specs, plans, summaries, all of it.

    So I started using that strength against one of the biggest pain points in agent work: losing context.

    1. The Problem
    2. The Workaround
    3. The Prompt I Use
    4. What I Want Cowork To Track
    5. The Recovery Flow
      1. Step 1: Open the Output Folder
      2. Step 2: Copy the OneDrive Link
      3. Step 3: Start a New Cowork Session
    6. Why This Works
    7. My Recommendation
    8. Final Take

    The Problem

    Sometimes a session can glitch, freeze, or reach a point where starting fresh is easier.

    The painful part is not starting a new session.

    The painful part is rebuilding the context.

    You have to explain the goal again. Rebuild the requirements. Re-upload or reconnect files. Remind it what decisions were already made. Recreate the mental map of the work.

    That burns time.

    So I started giving Copilot Cowork a job before it does any other job:

    Keep the context alive.

    The Workaround

    At the start of the session, tell Cowork to create a requirements.md file and keep it updated while you work.

    That file becomes the session brain.

    It gives you a portable record of the work that can move from one Cowork session to another.

    Think of it like a handoff file.

    Not a final deliverable. Not a pretty summary. A working memory file.

    The Prompt I Use

    Create a requirements.md file and keep it updated throughout this session.
    Use it to track the full context of our work, including:
    - requirements
    - decisions made
    - open items
    - files created
    - key conversation details
    - risks
    - assumptions
    - and next steps
    I want to be able to pass this file to another Copilot Cowork session
    so it can continue with full context.

    You can change the file name if you want.

    For some sessions, I might use project-context.md, demo-notes.md, or handoff.md.

    But I like requirements.md because it forces the session to stay grounded in what is actually being built.

    Note

    This works best when the requirements.md file is updated throughout the session, not only at the end. When decisions change, files are created, or blockers appear, tell Cowork to update the file.

    What I Want Cowork To Track

    The file should not be a fluffy recap.

    I want it tracking the stuff that matters:

    • Session goal
    • Current objective
    • Requirements
    • Decisions made
    • Files created
    • Important assumptions
    • Open questions
    • Risks or blockers
    • Next actions
    • Anything another session would need to continue the work

    That last one is the key.

    Do not just ask Cowork to summarize.

    Ask it to prepare the next session to continue the work.

    The Recovery Flow

    If the session glitches, breaks, or you want to continue in a fresh session, here is the flow I use.

    Step 1: Open the Output Folder

    In Copilot Cowork, open the details pane and look for the Output folder.

    Click the folder icon to open the generated files in OneDrive.

    Once the folder opens in OneDrive, click Copy link.

    This gives you a link to the folder that contains the files from the previous Cowork session.

    Step 3: Start a New Cowork Session

    Open a new Copilot Cowork session.

    Paste the OneDrive folder link into the new session and tell Cowork:

    Im continuing the <Project or task name>.
    Use the files from our previous session. ( <Paste OneDrive Link> )
    Start by reading the requirements.md file.
    Then continue the work from there.

    Now Cowork has a fighting chance at picking up where the previous session left off.

    Why This Works

    Agent workflows are only as strong as the context behind them.

    If the context is trapped inside one chat session, you are exposed.

    If the context is written into a file, you can move it.

    That changes the way you work with Cowork.

    You are no longer relying only on the chat thread.

    You are creating a portable project trail that can survive a new session.

    My Recommendation

    Make this part of your normal Copilot Cowork workflow.

    Before you ask it to build the document, analyze the data, write the plan, or generate the assets, tell it to create the context file first.

    Then keep pushing Cowork to update that file as the session evolves.

    When a decision is made, tell it to update the file.

    When a requirement changes, tell it to update the file.

    When a file is created, tell it to update the file.

    Small habit.

    Big protection.

    Final Take

    Copilot Cowork can generate the work.

    But you should also make it generate the trail.

    The requirements file keeps the important context outside the chat window, inside the actual working folder, where another session can use it.

    That is the move.

    Use Cowork to build the output.

    Use Cowork to protect the context.

    This is currently a limitation on the product, which I assume the Team will fix in the future. But for now, this is how I manage long running tasks and work with Copilot Cowork.

  • Build Your Agent Factory: 10 Moves That Ship Fast (and Scale)

    Build Your Agent Factory: 10 Moves That Ship Fast (and Scale)

    Build Your Agent Factory: 10 Moves That Ship Fast (and Scale)

    Agents at scale. Not POCs.

    Here’s the playbook I’d hand any exec or builder who wants working agents in production—without turning the org into a science fair.

    1) Stand up an AI Agents Workforce

    What it is: A small cross-functional crew with authority to hunt repetitive work and ship agents.

    Who’s in:

    • 1 product owner
    • 1 engineer (Copilot Studio/Power Automate)
    • 1 data person
    • 1 security/governance lead
    • 1 domain SME.

    Ship this week: Write a one-page charter with scope, decision rights, and a 30-day roadmap (first 5 agents + metrics).

    2) Win with horizontals first, then go vertical

    Horizontals (1-hour wins): drafting, summarizing, policy Q&A, meeting notes to actions, form-fill helpers.

    Verticals (outsized ROI): pick 1–2 per business unit where there’s money, risk, or SLA pain.

    Guardrail: don’t start with the hardest workflow; start where you can close the loop and measure value inside two weeks.

    3) Make an Agents Directory the front door

    Why: Ideas die in email. A directory turns “we should build X” into spec and governance.

    Minimum intake fields:

    • use case name
    • goal
    • users
    • decision rights
    • data sources + who owns it
    • tools
    • PII/sensitivity
    • KPIs
    • business owner
    • risk level
    • rollout plan.

    Outcome: Every request auto-generates a lightweight PRD (goal, inputs, outputs, metrics, guardrails) and a yes/no gate.

    4) Create the 1-Hour Agent template

    Template anatomy:

    Goal + success criteria Input schema (what the user provides) Tools (actions/connectors) and permissions Knowledge sources (files, sites, indexes) Safety rules (allowed/blocked actions, escalation) Evaluation set (10–20 test prompts with expected outcomes) Deploy script (Dev → Test → Prod)

    Rule: If a use case can’t fit this page, it’s not a 1-hour agent—park it for later.

    5) Tie every agent to a visible scorecard

    Metrics to publish: time saved, cost avoided, error rate, CO₂/efficiency (where relevant), user satisfaction.

    Simple formula: monthly users × average minutes saved × loaded cost = value.

    Make it public internally: green/red status, owner, last review, next improvement.

    6) Run on a secure, managed agent runtime

    Non-negotiables: identity passthrough, content safety, audit logs, tool call restrictions, data boundary controls, environment isolation.

    Practical tip: standardize a “sensitive sources” policy and block tools by default; allow case-by-case.

    7) Split the stack to move fast without breaking things

    Experience layer: Copilot Studio for UX, channels, and connectors.

    Agent runtime/orchestration: managed agent service for threads, tool calls, safety, and evaluations.

    Why it works: builders ship quickly at the edge; platform team keeps shared guardrails, monitoring, and upgrades stable.

    8) Mix knowledge + action (or you’ll stall)

    Knowledge: structured grounding (SharePoint/Fabric/Search), doc versioning, citations-on by default.

    Action: flows/Logic Apps, Graph, line-of-business APIs; always ship with a dry-run mode first.

    Design pattern: Answer → show sources → propose actions → execute on approval. When confidence is high and stakes are low, allow auto-execute.

    9) Keep humans in the loop—by design

    HITL patterns that work:

    Shadow mode (observe only) → suggest mode → execute with approval → auto-execute.

    Confidence thresholds where low confidence routes to a human. Escalation logic when guardrails trip or data is missing.

    UX rule: one click to approve, one click to undo.

    10) Plan to scale on day one

    Pipelines: Dev → Test → Prod with approvals and rollback.

    Evals: pre-ship test set per agent; weekly drift checks; quarterly red-team.

    Ops: central logging, cost dashboards, incident playbook.

    Program ritual: a quarterly “Agent Backlog Day” to harvest new ideas and retire underperformers.

    Starter Architecture (fast and boring)

    Experience: Copilot Studio (web, Teams, M365, chat, plugins)

    Actions: Power Automate/Logic Apps + custom APIs

    Knowledge: SharePoint/Fabric/AI Search with retrieval policies

    Runtime: managed agent service for tool orchestration, identity, safety

    Observability: evaluations, telemetry, and a simple agent scorecard per app

    Security: Entra ID RBAC, private endpoints, DLP, approval gates

    Prompts and policies that save you pain

    Prompt contract (keep it in the repo): role, goals, inputs, allowed tools, forbidden actions, decision rights, escalation, output format, citation rules.

    Data contract: what sources are permitted, freshness expectations, sensitivity tags.

    Failure modes: what the agent must do when unsure (ask for clarification, route to human, or stop).

    Anti-patterns I keep seeing

    • Starting with an “AI strategy deck” instead of shipping 3 agents.
    • Agents that answer but can’t act—users stop coming back.
    • No owner, no scorecard, no sunset date.
    • Canary-testing in production without a rollback plan.
    • Letting one giant use case block 20 small wins.

    Your first week mapped

    Day 1: Form the team and publish the charter.

    Day 2: Launch the Agents Directory (intake + PRD autogeneration).

    Day 3–4: Build two 1-hour agents (drafting + policy Q&A) with eval sets.

    Day 5: Ship to a pilot group with scorecards visible. Book the first backlog day.


  • Maximize Efficiency with GPT-5 Router-Optimized Prompts

    Maximize Efficiency with GPT-5 Router-Optimized Prompts

    This prompt pack is around general use, if you would like a more focused pack focused on a specific industry or scenario, comment below.

    Below you will find the prompt pack in 3 formats

    Word doc download:

    Markdown download (word press wont let me upload markdown file so I have uploaded to my GitHub for download: FlowAltDelete/GPT-5-Router-Optimized-Universal-Prompt-Pack

    If you don’t want to download, I have also put the prompt pack below

    GPT‑5 Router‑Optimized Universal Prompt Pack (v1.1)

    What this is: A field‑tested, router‑aware prompt pack tuned for GPT‑5.
    How to use: Paste the Router Boost Header 2.0 above any task below, then use the upgraded prompt. Each item includes a fast audit (strengths, gaps, tuning) so you know why it works.


    Router Boost Header 2.0 (paste above any prompt)

    Task: [one sentence describing “done”].
    Context/Grounding: [paste facts/links/notes]. Cite sources if summarizing; don’t invent.
    Constraints: audience=[…], tone=[…], length=[…], locality=[region/laws], non‑negotiables=[…].
    Output Contract: [exact format/schema; if JSON, include a schema].
    Tool Grants: You may use internal reasoning, code execution, and structured output. Do not expose chain‑of‑thought; return only the final results.
    Mode: Choose fast for simple tasks, deep for complex ones; state the choice on one line before the output.
    Self‑Check: Validate constraints, factuality (vs. sources), and format before returning. If JSON, ensure it parses.
    Failure Policy: If blocked or context is thin, list missing info and ask 3 sharp questions; otherwise proceed with explicit assumptions labeled “Assumptions.”

    Tip: Keep the header short in production—only include fields that matter. If you need determinism, ask for “low‑randomness; no lateral riffs.”


    Universal GPT‑5 Prompt Pack v1.1**

    Below: for each prompt

    • Use when: best fit.
    • Strengths: what’s good already.
    • Gaps: what to tighten for GPT‑5.
    • Router tuning: small switches that improve results.
    • Upgraded prompt: copy/paste ready.
    • (Optional) Strict JSON variant: when you need machine‑readable output.

    1) Executive Summary (Any Topic)

    Use when: You need crisp, executive‑level clarity in 30–90 seconds.
    Strengths: Forces prioritization; covers timing and action.
    Gaps: Can drift into fluff; doesn’t enforce one‑line bullets; missing “evidence”.
    Router tuning: Demand one‑line bullets with bold labels; add “evidence” blip; enforce count.

    Upgraded prompt

    Create exactly **5 one‑line bullets** summarizing [topic/brief].
    Each bullet starts with a bold label: **What matters**, **Why now**, **Risks**, **Decision**, **Next actions**.
    Add ≤12 words per bullet. Include 1 source or metric if available.
    Mode: [fast/deep]. Return as a simple bullet list—no preamble.
    

    Strict JSON variant

    Return valid JSON:
    { "what_matters": "...", "why_now": "...", "risks": "...", "decision": "...", "next_actions": "..." }
    

    2) Research Plan (Adversarial)

    Use when: You must test a claim/feature beyond happy‑path.
    Strengths: Calls for metrics, data, adversarial tests.
    Gaps: No threat model; no instrument plan; no stop/continue math.
    Router tuning: Introduce threat model + falsification criteria; add power checks.

    Upgraded prompt

    Design an **adversarial research plan** to evaluate [claim/feature]. Include:
    1) Objectives & hypotheses (null + alt); 2) Success metrics & thresholds; 3) Threat model (abuse, edge cases);
    4) Data to collect (fields, sample size/power);
    5) Protocols (A/B, holdout, offline evals);
    6) Adversarial tests & red‑team scripts;
    7) Stop/continue rule with math;
    8) Reporting template (tables/plots).
    Mode: [fast/deep]. Output as a numbered outline.
    

    3) Decision Memo

    Use when: A one‑pager to choose among options.
    Strengths: Options, costs, risks, reversibility, rec.
    Gaps: No owner/date format; no “evidence” box; weak contingency.
    Router tuning: Add RACI owner/date; add 30/60/90 follow‑ups.

    Upgraded prompt

    Write a one‑page decision memo for [choice]. Include:
    - Context (1 para) with constraints & evidence;
    - Options (3): summary, costs (one‑time/run), risks, reversibility;
    - Recommendation: **one** choice with rationale;
    - Owner + Decision date; 30/60/90‑day checkpoints;
    - Contingency triggers & rollback plan.
    Mode: [fast/deep]. Keep ≤400 words.
    

    4) Project Plan One‑Pager

    Use when: Turn messy notes into plan.
    Strengths: Scope, milestones, owners, risks, comms, RAID.
    Gaps: No critical path; RAID often hand‑wavy.
    Router tuning: Add dates & simple Gantt list; RAID as compact table.

    Upgraded prompt

    From these notes: [paste], produce a one‑page plan with:
    1) Scope (in/out);
    2) Milestones (name, owner, date) in order;
    3) Critical path (1‑3 bullets);
    4) Comms cadence (who, channel, freq);
    5) RAID summary table (Risk/Assumption/Issue/Dependency → owner, impact, mitigation);
    6) Acceptance criteria (bullet list).
    Mode: [fast/deep]. Keep it skimmable.
    

    5) Meeting → Decisions

    Use when: Converting raw notes to what matters.
    Strengths: Decisions & actions separation.
    Gaps: No owners on decisions; action status taxonomy missing.
    Router tuning: Add decision owner + rationale; status enum.

    Upgraded prompt

    Convert these notes: [paste] into:
    A) **Decisions** list (decision, owner, rationale, date);
    B) **Actions** table {owner, step, due, status ∈ [New, In‑Progress, Blocked, Done]}.
    Mode: [fast/deep]. No commentary, just the two sections.
    

    Strict JSON variant

    { "decisions": [ { "decision": "", "owner": "", "rationale": "", "date": "" } ],
      "actions": [ { "owner": "", "step": "", "due": "", "status": "New|In-Progress|Blocked|Done" } ] }
    

    6) Cold Email Trio

    Use when: 3‑touch outbound sequence.
    Strengths: Problem → proof → ask. Short.
    Gaps: ICP nuance; weak personalization; missing CTA micro‑asks.
    Router tuning: Insert first‑line personal hook; vary asks.

    Upgraded prompt

    Write **3 cold emails** for [offer] to [ICP].
    Email 1: name the **patterned pain**; end with a 10‑min micro‑ask.
    Email 2: social proof/insight (number/metric), 1 sentence case study.
    Email 3: crisp ask with 2 time options.
    Each ≤120 words, 5‑7 sentences, no fluff. Include a {First‑line personalization} placeholder.
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    7) LinkedIn Authority Post

    Use when: Thought leadership for execs + builders.
    Strengths: Structure, framework, prompt.
    Gaps: Risk of buzzwords; no proof.
    Router tuning: Require 1 mini‑case and 1 number.

    Upgraded prompt

    Write a LinkedIn post on [topic] for execs + builders:
    - 3 punchy paragraphs (≤60 words each);
    - 1 mini‑framework (3 bullets, named);
    - 1 thought prompt (1 line);
    - Include one concrete number or example; avoid buzzwords.
    Mode: [fast/deep]. No hashtags unless asked.
    

    8) X Post (Bold, No Hashtags)

    Use when: High‑signal micro‑take.
    Strengths: Tight character limit, bold stance.
    Gaps: Might overrun chars; no proof token.
    Router tuning: Enforce count; include 1 fact word/number.

    Upgraded prompt

    Write one confident X post on [insight/news]. ≤240 chars.
    Format: HOOK — TAKEAWAY. Include **one** concrete fact or number.
    No hashtags. No emoji at the end. Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    9) YouTube Kit

    Use when: Fast ideation + structure.
    Strengths: Titles, open, chapters.
    Gaps: Title length drift; missing viewer promise.
    Router tuning: Enforce title count/length; add “who it’s for.”

    Upgraded prompt

    For a video on [topic], produce:
    - **10 titles** (<60 chars);
    - A two‑sentence cold open that states who it’s for and the promise;
    - Chapter list with timestamps (estimate) and outcomes per chapter.
    Mode: [fast/deep]. No clickbait lies.
    

    10) Content Angle Generator

    Use when: Topic expansion without repetition.
    Strengths: Rich buckets.
    Gaps: Duplicates; vague angles.
    Router tuning: Enforce uniqueness + sample headline.

    Upgraded prompt

    List **25 distinct content angles** for [niche/product] across:
    how‑to, contrarian, teardown, story, data, tutorial, tool, myth vs fact.
    For each: 1‑line angle + a sample headline. No repeats. Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    11) Product Spec from Idea

    Use when: Move from idea to v1.
    Strengths: Users, JTBD, metrics, scope.
    Gaps: Test plan vague; acceptance criteria missing.
    Router tuning: Add measurable acceptance + de‑scoping rules.

    Upgraded prompt

    Turn this idea into a lean product spec:
    - Users & JTBD; key use cases;
    - Success metrics (leading/lagging) with targets;
    - V1 scope (must/should/could) and out‑of‑scope;
    - Acceptance criteria (measurable);
    - Test plan (happy path, edge, abuse).
    Mode: [fast/deep]. ≤500 words.
    

    12) UX Critique

    Use when: Actionable UI improvements.
    Strengths: Issues + fixes.
    Gaps: Evidence often light; microcopy not tested.
    Router tuning: Severity scale + before/after microcopy.

    Upgraded prompt

    Critique the UX of [flow/screen]. Deliver:
    - 10 issues with severity ∈ {P0, P1, P2}, evidence, and concrete fix;
    - A before→after microcopy table (3–5 rows);
    - One quick win and one deeper redesign note.
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    13) CSV Data Brief

    Use when: Shape an analysis plan before coding.
    Strengths: Questions → steps → visuals.
    Gaps: Schema ambiguity; data checks missing.
    Router tuning: Add sanity checks + exact chart types.

    Upgraded prompt

    Given CSV schema: [columns], produce:
    1) 5 decision‑driven questions;
    2) Validation checks (types, nulls, outliers);
    3) Analysis steps;
    4) Exact visuals/tables to produce (chart type, axes, groupings).
    Mode: [fast/deep]. No code unless asked.
    

    14) Code from Spec

    Use when: From spec to runnable core.
    Strengths: Architecture, snippets, tests, edges.
    Gaps: Env assumptions; complexity unbounded.
    Router tuning: Pin language/runtime; include complexity notes.

    Upgraded prompt

    Given this spec: [paste], provide:
    - Architecture diagram (text) and key components;
    - Core code snippets in [language/runtime] with minimal deps;
    - Tests (unit/integration) and fixtures;
    - Failure/edge cases + graceful handling;
    - Complexity & trade‑offs section.
    Mode: [fast/deep]. Keep idiomatic.
    

    15) Code Review + Refactor

    Use when: Improve safety & clarity with a plan.
    Strengths: Smells, hotspots, steps, tests.
    Gaps: Lacks risk scoring; migration path unclear.
    Router tuning: Add impact x effort; phased plan.

    Upgraded prompt

    Review this code: [paste]. Deliver:
    - Findings by category (correctness, security, perf, clarity);
    - Hotspots with complexity signals;
    - Refactor plan in small, safe steps with tests;
    - Risk/Impact vs Effort matrix (P0/P1/P2);
    - Before/after snippet for 1 key function.
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    16) Strict JSON Every Time

    Use when: Machine‑readable output required.
    Strengths: Clear schema.
    Gaps: No parser check; no enum constraints.
    Router tuning: Include enums & validation note.

    Upgraded prompt

    Return **only valid JSON** for [task]. Schema:
    {
      "title": "string",
      "summary": "string",
      "risks": ["string"],
      "actions": [ { "owner": "string", "step": "string", "eta": "YYYY-MM-DD" } ],
      "metrics": ["string"]
    }
    No prose. Validate keys, types, and date format before returning.
    

    17) SOP / Checklist

    Use when: Repeatable, low‑variance execution.
    Strengths: Steps + gates + recovery.
    Gaps: Timing windows; roles not explicit.
    Router tuning: Add roles & time boxes.

    Upgraded prompt

    Draft a step‑by‑step SOP for [process]. Include:
    - Prereqs & roles;
    - Steps with time boxes;
    - Quality gates with pass/fail checks;
    - Common failure recovery & escalation ladder.
    Mode: [fast/deep]. Output as a checklist.
    

    18) Positioning & ICP

    Use when: Sharpen message‑market fit.
    Strengths: ICP, pains, alts, value prop, messages, pitch.
    Gaps: Jobs vs pains; proof tokens missing.
    Router tuning: Add JTBD & proof lines.

    Upgraded prompt

    Define positioning for [product]. Provide:
    - ICP traits (firmographic + behavioral);
    - JTBD and top pains (ranked);
    - Alternatives (do‑nothing included);
    - Value proposition (benefit + proof);
    - 3 key messages;
    - 3‑line elevator pitch.
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    19) Competitive Teardown

    Use when: Side‑by‑side clarity.
    Strengths: Features, UX, pricing, moat, switching costs, objections.
    Gaps: Buyer role nuance; evidence weak.
    Router tuning: Add role lens + cite artifacts.

    Upgraded prompt

    Compare [your product] vs [competitor] for [buyer role]. Cover:
    - Features & UX (table);
    - Pricing (typical deal sizes/TCO);
    - Moat & switching costs;
    - Buyer objections + crisp replies;
    - Evidence links (docs, screenshots) if available.
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    20) Policy First Draft (Non‑Legal)

    Use when: First pass policy with clarity.
    Strengths: Rules, examples, do/don’t, escalation.
    Gaps: No scope/authority; review cadence missing.
    Router tuning: Add scope, owner, review cadence.

    Upgraded prompt

    Draft a **non‑legal** first‑pass policy for [topic]. Include:
    - Scope & definitions; policy owner;
    - Rules with examples; do/don’t lists;
    - Compliance checks & escalation path;
    - Exceptions process;
    - Review cadence and change log placeholder;
    - Legal review placeholder.
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    21) 7‑Day Learning Plan

    Use when: Focused upskilling in a week.
    Strengths: Daily objectives, resources, practice, quiz.
    Gaps: Entry level varies; no capstone.
    Router tuning: Add diagnostic + capstone.

    Upgraded prompt

    Build a 7‑day learning plan for [skill/exam]. Include:
    - Day 0 diagnostic (what to skip/focus);
    - Daily objectives, resources (≤3/day), and practice tasks;
    - Daily self‑quiz (5 Qs) with expected answers;
    - Day 7 capstone task with rubric.
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    22) Negotiation Prep

    Use when: Plan the conversation before the room.
    Strengths: Goals, walk‑away, BATNA, concessions, questions, opening.
    Gaps: Counter‑plays; objection map missing.
    Router tuning: Add opponent map + scripts.

    Upgraded prompt

    Create a negotiation brief for [deal]. Include:
    - Goals; walk‑away; BATNA;
    - Concession strategy (give/get);
    - Questions to surface interests;
    - Opening script;
    - Objection map with counters;
    - Opponent/alignment map (roles, power, interests).
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    23) Landing Page Copy

    Use when: Write conversion‑first copy.
    Strengths: Section list, direct tone.
    Gaps: Segment nuance; FAQ weak.
    Router tuning: Add segment option + proof elements.

    Upgraded prompt

    Write a landing page for [offer]. Sections:
    - Headline + subhead (clear promise);
    - Value bullets (3–6) with outcomes;
    - Proof (logos, testimonial lines, metrics);
    - CTA (primary + secondary);
    - FAQ (5–7 Qs).
    Optional: provide a variant for [segment].
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    24) Automation Blueprint

    Use when: Design automations with ROI.
    Strengths: Triggers, steps, data, errors, alerts, ROI.
    Gaps: SLAs; run‑costs; auditability.
    Router tuning: Add SLAs, idempotency, and cost model.

    Upgraded prompt

    Propose automations for [workflow]. Include:
    - Triggers & prerequisites;
    - Steps with systems & data sources;
    - Error handling (retries, dead‑letter, idempotency);
    - Alerts/observability (what, who, channel, thresholds);
    - SLAs & run‑cost model;
    - ROI estimate (baseline vs future, payback).
    Mode: [fast/deep].
    

    Bonus: Mini Switches You Can Add Anywhere

    • “Low‑randomness, no lateral riffs.” For deterministic outputs.
    • “Use a verification pass: compare output vs. constraints, fix before returning.”
    • “If citing, append a short sources list with titles + links.”
    • “Label assumptions explicitly if context is thin.”
    • “Return a ‘How to use this output’ note in one line.”

    Final Notes

    • Keep the Router Header lean; the power comes from clear Output Contracts and tight constraints.
    • Prefer JSON when downstream automation is needed; prefer skimmable bullets when humans are the primary consumer.
    • If you need extra toughness, combine “adversarial” and “self‑check” lines.

    Changelog v1.1 (this doc): Added threat models, self‑check, enum statuses, strict JSON variants, SLAs/costs for automation, and decision‑date/owner fields for memos.