Claude Prompts for Deep Work
Claude shines at long documents, nuanced writing, and careful multi-step reasoning. These prompts lean into those strengths — especially pasting large amounts of context and asking for structured, thoughtful output.
Long Documents & Analysis
I'm pasting a long document. First summarize it in 5 bullets, then answer: what are the 3 weakest arguments, what's missing entirely, and what would a skeptical expert challenge first? [PASTE DOCUMENT]Compare these two documents. Build a table of: agreements, direct contradictions, and topics only one covers. Then tell me which is more credible and why: [PASTE BOTH]Here's a contract/agreement. Explain it in plain English section by section, flag anything unusual or one-sided, and list questions I should ask before signing: [PASTE TEXT]I'm pasting raw interview/meeting transcripts. Extract every distinct opinion expressed, who holds it, and where people disagree — quote the exact lines: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT]Read this report and produce an executive brief: situation, complication, key numbers, decision required, and your recommendation with confidence level: [PASTE REPORT]
Writing With Nuance
Write a difficult message: I need to tell [WHO] that [HARD TRUTH] while preserving the relationship. Give me 3 versions: direct, gentle, and formal — and say which you'd send.Here's my draft. Don't rewrite it — instead, ask me the 5 questions whose answers would most improve it, then wait for my replies: [PASTE DRAFT]Adapt this text for 3 audiences: a CEO (skimmable, business impact), an engineer (precise, technical), and a new customer (warm, jargon-free): [PASTE TEXT]Write [PIECE] in my voice. Here are 2 samples of my writing — match sentence rhythm, vocabulary level, and how I open and close: [PASTE SAMPLES]Critique this piece the way a top editor at [PUBLICATION] would: line-level notes plus a verdict on whether the core idea is strong enough: [PASTE TEXT]
Thinking & Decisions
Help me think through [DECISION] with a structure: what I control vs don't, reversible vs irreversible aspects, best/worst/most-likely outcomes, and what evidence would change my mind.Steelman both sides of [ISSUE] so well that a supporter of each would say 'that's fair.' Then identify the crux — the single question that actually decides it.I believe [BELIEF/PLAN]. Act as a red team: attack the assumptions, find the failure modes, and rate the overall risk 1–10 with reasoning.Walk me through [PROBLEM] using first principles: strip away assumptions, list what's fundamentally true, and rebuild the solution from scratch.I keep going back and forth on [DILEMMA]. Interview me one question at a time to uncover what I actually want, then reflect it back.
Coding & Technical
Here's my codebase context and a bug: [PASTE CODE + ERROR]. Reason step by step about the root cause before proposing any fix. Then give the minimal patch.Refactor this code for readability without changing behavior. Explain each change and why it's safer or clearer: [PASTE CODE]Write comprehensive tests for this function: happy path, edge cases, and failure modes. Use [FRAMEWORK]: [PASTE CODE]Act as a senior engineer reviewing my architecture plan: [DESCRIBE PLAN]. What breaks at 10x scale? What's over-engineered today?Translate this [LANGUAGE A] code to [LANGUAGE B], keeping idiomatic style in the target language — not a literal translation: [PASTE CODE]
Tips for Better Results
- Paste everything — Claude handles very long context well, and more context reliably beats clever phrasing.
- Ask it to reason before answering ('think step by step, then answer') for analysis-heavy tasks.
- Use 'don't rewrite — ask me questions first' to keep control of your own voice in writing tasks.
- Give it your writing samples when tone matters; it's unusually good at matching them.
New to Claude? Start with the step-by-step guide.
◆ HOW TO USE CLAUDE