Best PromptsDeal Qualification Review
Stress-test a live deal against a qualification framework: what you actually know, what you assumed, and the next question that unblocks it.
Review this deal and tell me how real it is. Deal notes, call summaries, and emails: """ [PASTE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE. RAW NOTES ARE BETTER THAN A SUMMARY.] """ Deal size and stage in our pipeline: [AMOUNT + STAGE] Close date currently forecast: [DATE] Framework to use: [MEDDICC / BANT / your own, listed] Produce: 1. **Evidence table.** One row per framework element (for MEDDICC: metrics, economic buyer, decision criteria, decision process, identify pain, champion, competition). For each row: what we know, the exact quote or note it comes from, and a confidence label of CONFIRMED (the buyer said it), INFERRED (we deduced it), or UNKNOWN. Anything not traceable to something in my notes is UNKNOWN, not INFERRED. 2. **The honest read.** Which elements are genuinely unknown, and which have we been treating as known because we want them to be. Name the single riskiest assumption in this deal. 3. **Champion test.** Has anyone taken a risk for us internally, or have they only been friendly? Cite the evidence. Friendliness is not sponsorship, and mistaking one for the other is the most common way a forecast breaks. 4. **Close date reality check.** Working backward from the forecast date through their decision process, security review, procurement, and signature, is the date achievable? If not, give the earliest realistic date and what would have to happen to hit the original one. 5. **Next moves.** The three highest-value questions to ask next, phrased as I would actually say them on a call, each with the specific ambiguity it resolves. 6. **Verdict.** Commit, upside, or unqualified, with the two facts that would change the verdict. Rules: work only from my notes. Do not invent buyer statements, budget figures, or timelines. If the notes are too thin to judge an element, that finding is the point.
How to use
The CONFIRMED versus INFERRED distinction is the entire value here. Pipelines inflate because inference quietly gets promoted to fact between one forecast call and the next, and a deal with six inferred elements looks identical in a CRM to one with six confirmed ones. Paste raw call notes rather than your written summary, since the summary has already done the promoting. Run this on your top three deals before every forecast, and treat the champion test as the first thing to fix.
More marketing prompts
Audit my visibility in AI answer engines and give me a fix list. Business: [WHAT YOU SELL, TO WHOM] Category terms people use: [e.g. "invoicing software for freelancers"] Competitors that get named instead of us: [LIST, or "unknown"] Pages to evaluate: """ [PASTE THE FULL TEXT OF 1-5 KEY PAGES: homepage, a product page, your best guide]
AI Search Visibility Audit
Audit whether ChatGPT, Perplexity, and AI Overviews can find, quote, and recommend you, then get a prioritized plan to fix what they cannot.
Audit my existing content and tell me what to refresh, merge, or retire. Page data (title, URL, target keyword, traffic now, traffic at peak, publish date, last update, conversions if known): """ [PASTE AS A TABLE OR LIST] """ Business goal this content serves: [e.g. "trial signups from mid-funnel guides"] For each page, assign one act
Content Refresh Audit
Decide which existing pages to update, merge, or delete based on decay and intent drift, with a specific change list for each keeper.
Write responsive search ad copy for this ad group. Product or service: [WHAT IT IS, WHO IT IS FOR] Ad group theme and keywords: [THE TIGHT KEYWORD SET THIS AD GROUP TARGETS] What the searcher is trying to do: [e.g. "compare options", "buy now", "fix an urgent problem"] Landing page: [WHAT THE PAGE ACTUALLY OFFERS AND WHAT THE PRIMARY ACT
Google Ads Copy
Write responsive search ad headlines and descriptions that match query intent, with pinning guidance and a matching landing page check.