Best Claude Prompts: 40+ Templates for Anthropic's AI Assistant

<task>
Write a [document type] about [topic].
</task>

<context>
Audience: [who will read this]
Purpose: [what this document should accomplish]
Tone: [formal / conversational / technical]
Length: [target word count]
</context>

<requirements>
- Begin with a clear thesis or key message
- Support each major point with specific evidence or examples
- Use [heading structure: H2 only / H2+H3]
- Avoid filler phrases and generalities
- End with actionable conclusions, not a summary of what was said
</requirements>

<constraints>
- Do not use the phrases "in conclusion," "it's worth noting,"
  or "at the end of the day"
- Every paragraph must add new information
- Maximum [X] sentences per paragraph
</constraints>

<task>
Edit the following text for clarity, precision, and impact.
</task>

<text>
[paste your text]
</text>

<editing_guidelines>
1. Tighten sentences: remove words that don't earn their place
2. Replace vague language with specific claims
3. Fix any logical gaps or unsupported assertions
4. Improve transitions between paragraphs
5. Maintain the author's voice, don't make it sound generic
</editing_guidelines>

<output_format>
Provide:
1. The edited text (with changes integrated)
2. A bulleted list of the most significant changes and why
3. One suggestion for structural improvement
</output_format>

<task>
Create a comprehensive content plan for a [word count]-word article
about [topic].
</task>

<audience>[describe target readers]</audience>

<objective>[what readers should know/do after reading]</objective>

<output>
Provide:
1. Working title (3 options)
2. Target keywords (primary + 5 secondary)
3. Detailed outline with H2 and H3 headings
4. For each section:
   - Key points to cover (3-5 bullets)
   - Suggested evidence or examples
   - Word count allocation
5. Internal linking opportunities to related content
6. CTA recommendation
</output>

<task>
Analyze the following document and extract key insights.
</task>

<document>
[paste long document, Claude handles 100K+ tokens]
</document>

<analysis_framework>
1. Executive Summary: The 3 most important takeaways (3 sentences)
2. Key Arguments: What claims does the document make? Are they
   well-supported?
3. Data Points: Extract all specific numbers, statistics, and
   quantitative claims
4. Gaps: What questions does this document raise but not answer?
5. Contradictions: Are there any internal inconsistencies?
6. Actionable Items: What decisions or actions does this inform?
</analysis_framework>

<format>
Use headers for each section. Keep the total analysis under
[word count] words. Be specific, reference page/section
numbers when citing the document.
</format>

<task>
Synthesize the following sources into a coherent analysis of [topic].
</task>

<sources>
<source_1>[paste or describe source 1]</source_1>
<source_2>[paste or describe source 2]</source_2>
<source_3>[paste or describe source 3]</source_3>
</sources>

<synthesis_requirements>
- Identify where sources agree and where they conflict
- Weight more credible sources higher (explain your reasoning)
- Distinguish between well-established facts and contested claims
- Note any gaps that none of the sources address
- Avoid false balance; if the evidence is lopsided, say so
</synthesis_requirements>

<output>
Produce a [word count]-word synthesis with:
1. Consensus findings
2. Areas of disagreement (with analysis of which position
   is better supported)
3. Open questions for further research
4. Confidence assessment for each major finding (High/Medium/Low)
</output>

<task>
Compare [option A] and [option B] for [specific use case/context].
</task>

<evaluation_criteria>
<criterion name="[Criterion 1]" weight="[1-5]">
[What this means and why it matters]
</criterion>
<criterion name="[Criterion 2]" weight="[1-5]">
[What this means and why it matters]
</criterion>
<criterion name="[Criterion 3]" weight="[1-5]">
[What this means and why it matters]
</criterion>
</evaluation_criteria>

<analysis_rules>
- Score each option 1-10 on each criterion
- Justify every score with specific evidence
- Calculate weighted totals
- Identify the scenario where each option wins
- Provide a clear recommendation with stated assumptions
</analysis_rules>

<task>
Write a [language] implementation of [what you need].
</task>

<specifications>
- Input: [describe inputs and their types]
- Output: [describe expected output]
- Edge cases to handle: [list them]
- Performance requirement: [if relevant]
- Dependencies: [allowed libraries/frameworks]
</specifications>

<code_standards>
- Include comprehensive error handling
- Add inline comments explaining non-obvious logic
- Follow [language] best practices and naming conventions
- Include type annotations/hints where applicable
- Write for readability over cleverness
</code_standards>

<deliverables>
1. The implementation
2. Usage example
3. Unit test cases (at least 5, including edge cases)
4. Brief explanation of design decisions
</deliverables>

<task>
Write technical documentation for [code/API/system].
</task>

<source_code>
[paste code or API specification]
</source_code>

<documentation_structure>
1. Overview: What this does and why (2-3 sentences)
2. Quick Start: Minimal working example (copy-pasteable)
3. API Reference: Every public method/endpoint with:
   - Description
   - Parameters (name, type, required/optional, default)
   - Return value
   - Example usage
   - Error cases
4. Configuration: All options with defaults and descriptions
5. Common Patterns: 3-5 frequent use cases with examples
6. Troubleshooting: 5 common issues and their solutions
</documentation_structure>

<style>
- Write for developers who are competent but unfamiliar
  with this specific code
- Prioritize examples over explanations
- Every code sample must be runnable as-is
</style>

<task>
Analyze [situation/decision/opportunity] using a structured
strategic framework.
</task>

<context>
[Provide all relevant background information]
</context>

<analysis_approach>
Apply the following frameworks in sequence:

1. Situation Assessment: What's happening now and why?
2. Stakeholder Analysis: Who's affected and what are
   their interests?
3. Option Generation: What are the 3-4 realistic paths forward?
4. Risk Assessment: What could go wrong with each option?
5. Recommendation: Which option and why?
</analysis_approach>

<output_requirements>
- Be specific, not generic (reference details from the context)
- Quantify where possible
- Acknowledge uncertainty explicitly
- Provide a "if we learn X, reconsider Y" contingency
- Maximum [word count] words
</output_requirements>

<task>
Prepare a comprehensive brief for my upcoming meeting.
</task>

<meeting_details>
Type: [1-on-1 / team / board / client / vendor]
With: [their role and relationship to you]
Topic: [main agenda]
Duration: [time]
My goal: [what I want to accomplish]
</meeting_details>

<deliverables>
1. Key talking points (5-7, prioritized)
2. Questions to ask (5, strategic)
3. Questions they might ask me (5, with prepared answers)
4. One-page summary of relevant background/data
5. Desired outcomes (realistic and stretch)
6. Follow-up action items template
</deliverables>

<task>
Explain [concept] at three different levels of complexity.
</task>

<levels>
<beginner>
Assume no prior knowledge. Use analogies from everyday life.
No jargon. Focus on intuition over precision.
</beginner>

<intermediate>
Assume familiarity with [prerequisite concepts]. Include
technical terms but define them. Explain mechanisms, not
just outcomes.
</intermediate>

<advanced>
Assume expert background. Focus on nuances, edge cases,
current debates, and recent developments. Include references
to key papers or frameworks.
</advanced>
</levels>

<format>
Each level should be [150-300] words. Use a consistent example
that gets more detailed at each level.
</format>

<task>
Help me learn [topic] through Socratic questioning.
</task>

<my_current_understanding>
[Describe what you already know, even if it's wrong]
</my_current_understanding>

<teaching_approach>
- Ask me questions that lead me toward understanding
  (don't just explain)
- Start with what I already know and build from there
- If I'm wrong, don't correct directly; ask a question
  that exposes the gap
- Confirm when I'm on the right track
- Use concrete examples over abstract definitions
- After 3-4 exchanges, provide a concise summary of what
  we've established
</teaching_approach>

<ground_rules>
- One question at a time
- Keep questions focused and specific
- If I'm stuck, provide a hint before the answer
- Adjust difficulty based on my responses
</ground_rules>

<constraints>
- Never use passive voice
- Each paragraph must be under 4 sentences
- Include exactly 3 examples
- Do not reference information outside the provided context
- If uncertain about a claim, say so explicitly
</constraints>

<role>
You are a [specific role] with expertise in [domain].
Your communication style is [style description].
When analyzing problems, you prioritize [what matters most].
</role>

<approach>
1. Think through this step by step
2. After reaching your conclusion, review your reasoning
   for logical errors
3. If you find any issues, correct them before presenting
   the final answer
4. Rate your confidence in the answer: High/Medium/Low
</approach>