Lesson 7.3
Prompt Patterns That Reliably Work
A dozen reusable prompt patterns for business tasks, each with when to use it and a copyable example, drawing together the techniques from the rest of the course.
Across the previous domains a set of techniques has recurred: ask for an outline before a draft, request a critique, make Claude flag uncertainty, show an example. This final lesson collects them as named patterns. Patterns are useful because they are transferable: once you know the "clarify first" pattern, you can apply it to a contract review, a slide deck or a hiring plan. The exam presents tasks and asks which pattern fits, so learn the names, the purpose and the signature phrasing of each.
Patterns for getting the brief right
Clarify first. Ask Claude to interview you before producing anything. Best for tasks where you have not fully worked out what you want.
I need a one-page business case for replacing our expense tool. Before
drafting, ask me the five questions whose answers would most change
the document. Then wait for my replies.
Reverse brief. Ask Claude to state what it understands the task to be and what it would need. Catches misunderstandings cheaply.
Restate the task in your own words, list the assumptions you would
make, and tell me what information is missing. Do not start yet.
Patterns for structuring the work
Outline then draft. Approve the skeleton before paying for the prose. Best for anything over a page.
Propose a six-heading outline for the quarterly review with one line
per heading on what it will cover. I will approve or adjust before
you write.
Section by section. Generate long documents one part at a time, keeping each part in view. Reduces inconsistency and lets you steer.
Template fill. Supply the exact structure and ask Claude to populate it, marking gaps rather than inventing.
Fill this template from the attached notes. Where the notes do not
contain the information, write [MISSING] rather than guessing.
Patterns for better thinking
Reason first. Ask for the reasoning before the conclusion, or enable extended thinking for hard problems. Improves analysis and makes the answer checkable.
Work through the trade-offs step by step before giving a
recommendation. Show your reasoning, then state the recommendation
and the two assumptions it depends on.
Perspectives panel. Ask for the same question answered from several roles. Surfaces considerations you would otherwise miss.
Assess this proposal from three perspectives in turn: a CFO focused
on cash, a customer success lead focused on churn, and a sceptical
engineer focused on delivery risk. Then reconcile them.
Counter-case. After an answer you like, ask for the strongest argument against it. The antidote to agreeable AI and to your own confirmation bias.
Patterns for quality
Rubric and self-check. State the criteria in the prompt and ask Claude to assess its own output against them at the end.
Critique then revise. Separate the two steps. First ask for a critique of a draft (yours or Claude's), choose which points to act on, then ask for the revision. Produces better results than "improve this".
List the five weakest points in the draft above from the point of
view of the intended reader. Do not rewrite yet.
Options menu. Ask for three variants along a named dimension (conservative to bold, short to detailed, formal to warm). Choosing is faster than describing.
Patterns for trustworthy facts
Grounded only. Restrict Claude to the supplied material and require quotations or section references.
Using only the attached document, answer the question below. Quote
the sentence you rely on and give its section. If the document does
not answer it, say so.
Source tagging. Ask Claude to label each factual claim with its origin: supplied material, web search, general knowledge or assumption. Your verification list writes itself.
Placeholders. Ask for [FIGURE NEEDED] rather than a plausible number wherever Claude lacks the fact.
Patterns for audience
Explain for a reader. Name the reader and their knowledge: "Explain this to a new board member with no technology background in under 150 words." More reliable than "simplify".
Show the voice. Paste a sample and ask Claude to match it, or apply a custom Style.
Combining patterns
Patterns compose. A strong workflow for an important document might run: clarify first, outline then draft, section by section with grounded-only and placeholders, then critique then revise with a rubric and self-check, then counter-case before sign-off. Each step is a short prompt. The combination produces work you can defend.
Choosing a pattern
| Situation | Pattern |
|---|---|
| You are not sure what you want | Clarify first, reverse brief |
| Long or important document | Outline then draft, section by section |
| Fixed format | Template fill with placeholders |
| Hard judgement call | Reason first, perspectives panel, counter-case |
| Draft needs improving | Critique then revise, options menu |
| Facts must be right | Grounded only, source tagging, placeholders |
| Specific reader | Explain for a reader, show the voice |
Exam focus
- Named patterns are transferable techniques; the exam asks which pattern fits a task, so know purpose and signature phrasing.
- Clarify first and reverse brief fix the brief before any output is produced.
- Outline then draft, section by section and template fill with placeholders control structure and prevent invention.
- Reason first, perspectives panel and counter-case improve judgement and counter agreeable answers.
- Grounded only, source tagging and placeholders are the fact-reliability patterns; critique then revise, rubric and self-check, and options menu are the quality patterns.
Check yourself
5 questions
1.A planner asks Claude a multi-step scheduling question and gets a wrong answer. A colleague suggests adding 'work through this step by step before giving the final answer'. Why does this help?
2.A consultant's briefs to Claude are often incomplete, leading to drafts built on wrong assumptions. Which prompt pattern addresses this directly?
3.A team wants a reusable prompt template so that anyone can get consistent results for drafting tasks. Which template structure is most reliable?
4.Why do experienced users add 'If you are not sure or the information is not in the material provided, say so rather than guessing' to their prompts?
5.A policy team needs a 30-page guidance document from Claude and past attempts produced inconsistent structure and tone across the sections. Which approach is most likely to succeed?