AI Prompt Library for Business Tasks

When to use it

Use this after a call, a form submission, or a first meeting, when you want to reply quickly without sounding like a template. It works most reliably when you have a few specific details (what the lead asked about, their situation, and the next step you discussed) so the email reads as written for them rather than blasted out to a list.

Information you must provide

• The lead's name and business (if known)
• What they asked about or need
• Any details from your conversation
• The specific next step you want (call, quote, meeting)
• Your name and role

The prompt

Role: You are a helpful sales assistant for a small business, writing on my behalf.
Task: Write a short, friendly follow-up email to a lead based on the details below.
Context: The lead is [NAME] from [BUSINESS]. They contacted us about [WHAT THEY ASKED ABOUT]. From our conversation: [KEY DETAILS: needs, timeline, concerns]. I am [YOUR NAME], [YOUR ROLE].
Constraints: Keep it under 120 words. Warm but professional, plain language, no hype or pushy sales phrases. Do not invent prices, dates, or promises I did not make. Reference one specific thing they mentioned so it feels personal.
Output: Give me a subject line and the email body. Then list any details you had to leave blank because I did not provide them, so I can fill those in before sending.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• The lead's name and business are spelled correctly
• Every detail referenced actually came from your conversation
• No price, date, or commitment was invented
• The next step matches what you can actually offer
• The tone fits this specific relationship

When to use it

Use this right after a call or meeting, while it is fresh, to capture what was discussed without writing a formal report. It helps most when the notes need to be handed to a colleague, logged in a CRM, or referenced later: anywhere a messy set of jottings should become something a teammate can read and act on in under a minute.

Information you must provide

• Your raw notes or the conversation transcript
• The customer's name and company
• The date of the conversation
• What the summary will be used for (handoff, CRM, your own records)

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant that organizes customer conversation notes for a small business.
Task: Turn the notes below into a clear summary a colleague could read in under a minute.
Context: Conversation with [CUSTOMER NAME] from [COMPANY] on [DATE]. This summary will be used for [PURPOSE]. Raw notes: [PASTE YOUR NOTES OR TRANSCRIPT].
Constraints: Only include information present in the notes. Do not add, assume, or infer anything that was not said. Keep it factual and neutral. If something is unclear or missing, flag it rather than guessing.
Output: Return: (1) a two-line overview, (2) key points as short bullets, (3) any decisions made, (4) action items with an owner if one was named, and (5) open questions or missing details to confirm.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• Every point traces back to the actual notes (nothing invented)
• Names and company are correct
• Action items and owners are accurate
• Anything flagged as unclear is resolved before sharing
• Customer details are appropriate to store where this will go

When to use it

Use this after any internal meeting where things were decided but the notes are scattered. It is most useful when several people need to know who owns what and by when, and you don't want to retype everything. Paste whatever you captured (bullet fragments, half-sentences) and get back something the team can actually follow.

Information you must provide

• Your raw meeting notes
• The meeting date and topic
• Who attended (names/roles)
• Any deadlines mentioned

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant that turns meeting notes into a clear action plan.
Task: Read the notes below and produce a structured summary focused on what happens next.
Context: Meeting on [DATE] about [TOPIC]. Attendees: [NAMES/ROLES]. Raw notes: [PASTE NOTES].
Constraints: Use only what is in the notes. Assign an owner to an action item only if a name is clearly attached in the notes; otherwise mark the owner as "unassigned." Do not invent deadlines; if a date was not stated, write "no date given." Keep language plain.
Output: Return three sections: Decisions (what was agreed), Action items (each written as task, owner, and deadline in a clear list), and Follow-ups (anything left open or needing a future discussion).

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• Owners are only assigned where a name was truly stated
• No deadlines were invented
• Decisions match what the group actually agreed
• Unassigned items get an owner before the plan is circulated
• Nothing confidential is shared beyond the intended readers

When to use it

Use this when a task lives only in one person's head and you want it written down so anyone can follow it. It helps with onboarding, coverage during absences, and consistency. Describe the task the way you would explain it to a new hire, and the prompt turns your explanation into a clean, ordered procedure others can actually use.

Information you must provide

• The name of the task/procedure
• How it is currently done, in order
• Who normally performs it
• Any tools, logins, or approvals involved
• Common mistakes to avoid (if any)

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant that writes clear internal procedures for a small business.
Task: Turn my description below into a simple step-by-step procedure a new team member could follow.
Context: Procedure name: [NAME]. Normally done by: [ROLE]. How it works today: [DESCRIBE THE STEPS IN ORDER]. Tools or approvals involved: [LIST]. Known pitfalls: [OPTIONAL].
Constraints: Base every step only on what I described. Do not add steps you assume should exist. Where a detail is missing (a tool name, who approves), insert a clearly marked [FILL IN] placeholder instead of guessing. Use plain, direct language and number the steps.
Output: Return a titled procedure with: purpose (one line), who performs it, numbered steps, and a short "watch out for" note listing any pitfalls I mentioned. End with a list of the [FILL IN] gaps to complete.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• Every step reflects how the task is really done
• No steps were invented or wrongly reordered
• All [FILL IN] gaps are completed
• Approvals and tool names are accurate
• Someone unfamiliar with the task could follow it

When to use it

Use this when you have one thing to say (a new service, a tip, an update) and want to share it across a few places without writing each from scratch. It's a starting point, not a publish button: you'll edit each piece for your voice and check the facts. Give it the core idea and the channels it needs to reach.

Information you must provide

• The core idea or announcement
• Your business and what it does
• The audience
• The channels you want (e.g., short post, longer post, email blurb)
• Your general tone

The prompt

Role: You are a marketing assistant for a small business.
Task: Take the single idea below and turn it into several short content drafts for different channels.
Context: Business: [WHAT YOU DO]. Audience: [WHO]. The idea: [YOUR IDEA OR ANNOUNCEMENT]. Tone: [E.G., FRIENDLY AND PLAIN]. Channels I need: [E.G., A SHORT SOCIAL POST, A LONGER POST, AN EMAIL BLURB].
Constraints: Keep every claim consistent with the idea I gave. Do not invent statistics, features, or outcomes. No hype words or superlatives. Each piece should stand on its own, and vary the wording so they are not obvious copies. Do not add hashtags or emojis unless I asked for them.
Output: Label each draft by channel. Under each, note anything I should double-check or personalize before publishing.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• Every claim matches the real offer (no invented features or numbers)
• Days, times, and details are accurate
• The voice matches your brand
• Any channel rules (length, links) are met
• You'd be comfortable publishing each after light edits

When to use it

Use this when you need to respond to online reviews and want a measured starting point, especially for a critical review where tone matters. It helps you avoid sounding defensive or robotic. Paste the review and a little context; you will still edit and decide whether to respond publicly, move it to a private channel, or both.

Information you must provide

• The review text
• Whether it is positive, negative, or mixed
• Your business name and what happened, from your side
• How you want to come across (e.g., warm, accountable)
• Any limits on what you can offer

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant helping a small business respond to a customer review.
Task: Draft a short, professional public reply to the review below.
Context: Business: [NAME]. The review: [PASTE REVIEW]. It is [POSITIVE / NEGATIVE / MIXED]. What actually happened, from our side: [OPTIONAL CONTEXT]. I want to sound [E.G., WARM AND ACCOUNTABLE]. What we can offer: [ANY LIMITS].
Constraints: Never argue, blame the customer, or share private details about them or their order. Do not admit fault for things I did not describe, and do not promise anything beyond what I said we can offer. Keep it under 90 words. If the situation needs a private conversation, suggest moving it offline politely.
Output: Give me the reply. Below it, note whether this should also be handled privately and why.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• The reply admits nothing you did not actually describe
• No private customer details are exposed
• No promise exceeds what you can deliver
• The tone is calm and non-defensive
• You've decided whether a private follow-up is also needed

When to use it

Use this when you are hiring and need a description that attracts the right people without overpromising. It keeps responsibilities, requirements, and logistics in a consistent format. Provide the real details of the role; the prompt organizes them and flags anything vague, so your posting is accurate rather than a wish list nobody can meet.

Information you must provide

• The job title
• Your business, location, and on-site/hybrid/remote
• The main responsibilities
• Must-have vs. nice-to-have requirements
• Employment type, hours, and how to apply
• Pay range (if you will include it)

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant that writes clear, honest job descriptions for a small business.
Task: Turn the details below into a job posting that is accurate and easy to read.
Context: Title: [TITLE]. Business: [WHAT YOU DO], located in [LOCATION], [ON-SITE / HYBRID / REMOTE]. Responsibilities: [LIST]. Must-have requirements: [LIST]. Nice-to-have: [LIST]. Type/hours: [E.G., FULL-TIME]. How to apply: [INSTRUCTIONS]. Pay range: [OPTIONAL].
Constraints: Only include duties and requirements I listed. Do not pad the role with skills I did not mention. Avoid exaggerated language and "must do everything" framing. Keep must-haves genuinely essential; move the rest to nice-to-have. Use inclusive, plain wording.
Output: Return the posting with a short intro, Responsibilities, Requirements (must-have), Nice-to-have, Details (type, hours, location, pay if given), and How to apply. Flag anything I left vague.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• Every duty and requirement is one you actually listed
• Must-haves are truly essential (not inflated)
• Location, hours, and application steps are correct
• Language is inclusive and non-discriminatory
• Pay and legal details meet your local requirements

When to use it

Use this before a new person starts, so their first week is organized instead of improvised. It helps when you keep forgetting steps between hires: accounts, paperwork, introductions, training. Describe the role and your setup, and the prompt produces a reusable checklist you can refine each time you bring someone on.

Information you must provide

• The role and department
• What systems/accounts they'll need
• Required paperwork or compliance items
• Who they should meet or train with
• Their first-week goals (if any)

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant that builds practical onboarding checklists for a small business.
Task: Create a first-days onboarding checklist for the role below.
Context: Role: [TITLE], in [DEPARTMENT]. Systems/accounts needed: [LIST]. Paperwork/compliance: [LIST]. People to meet or train with: [LIST]. First-week goals: [OPTIONAL].
Constraints: Include only items relevant to what I described. Do not add generic tasks that do not apply to us. Group tasks sensibly and mark who is responsible where I named someone; otherwise mark "assign owner." Do not invent legal or compliance items, but leave a clearly labeled reminder to confirm local requirements.
Output: Return a checklist grouped as Before day one, Day one, and First week. Each item is a checkbox line with an owner. End with a short "confirm before using" note about any gaps.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• Every item applies to this specific role
• Owners are assigned before the checklist is used
• Account and system names are correct
• Legal/employment paperwork for your area is included
• No credentials or secrets are written into the checklist itself

When to use it

Use this when you have a report (a profit-and-loss summary, budget vs. actual, or a simple cash-flow view) and want a plain read before a meeting or decision. It helps you understand the story in the numbers and prepare questions. It doesn't replace your accountant; it helps you walk in informed and ask better ones.

Information you must provide

• The report figures (pasted or described)
• The period it covers
• What kind of report it is
• What decision or question prompted the review
• Any figures you already find confusing

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant that explains financial information in plain language for a business owner who is not an accountant.
Task: Read the figures below and explain what they show, simply.
Context: Report type: [E.G., PROFIT AND LOSS]. Period: [DATES]. The data: [PASTE FIGURES]. I'm reviewing this because: [REASON]. Parts I find confusing: [OPTIONAL].
Constraints: Explain only what the numbers show. Do not estimate missing figures, forecast, or give tax or investment advice. Define any term you use in one short phrase. Where something looks worth a closer look, phrase it as a question to ask, not a conclusion. Use plain words, not jargon.
Output: Return (1) a two-line plain summary, (2) what stands out (increases, decreases, unusual items) as bullets, (3) plain definitions of any terms used, and (4) questions to bring to a qualified accountant. End with the note: this is an explanation only; a qualified accountant should confirm anything before you act.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• Every figure cited matches your actual report
• No numbers were estimated or filled in
• Nothing is treated as tax or investment advice
• A qualified accountant reviews conclusions before you act
• Financial data is handled in an appropriate, private account

When to use it

Use this when a payment is late or due soon and you want a firm-but-friendly reminder that protects the relationship. It's helpful for building a short sequence (a gentle nudge, then a clearer follow-up) without sounding aggressive. Provide the invoice details and how overdue it is; you confirm the numbers before anything goes out.

Information you must provide

• The client name and contact
• Invoice number and amount
• The due date and how overdue it is
• Your payment terms and accepted methods
• The stage you want (first reminder, second, firm)

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant that drafts professional invoice follow-up messages for a small business.
Task: Write a follow-up message for the invoice below at the stage I specify.
Context: Client: [NAME]. Invoice [NUMBER] for [AMOUNT], due [DUE DATE], now [X DAYS OVERDUE / DUE SOON]. Payment terms: [TERMS]. Accepted methods: [METHODS]. Stage: [FIRST REMINDER / SECOND / FIRM].
Constraints: Stay polite and professional at every stage, never threatening. Use only the amounts, dates, and terms I provided; do not invent late fees or legal language. Keep it under 110 words. Include the invoice number and a clear, simple way to pay.
Output: Give me a subject line and message body. If I chose a firmer stage, keep it respectful and factual. Note any detail I should confirm (like the exact overdue amount) before sending.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• The invoice number, amount, and dates match your records exactly
• No late fees or legal terms were invented
• The client name and contact are correct
• The tone matches the stage and the relationship
• Fees, terms, and escalation are decided by you or a qualified accountant; the AI only drafts the message

When to use it

Use this when a process lives in people's heads and you want it mapped before improving or automating it. Describe the task as it really happens today; the prompt organizes it into the parts that matter and shows where a human should check. Mapping first prevents automating a broken process.

Information you must provide

• The name of the process
• What starts it (the trigger)
• The steps as they happen today, in order
• Who is involved and who owns what
• Where mistakes tend to happen
• What the finished result should be

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant that documents business workflows clearly for a small team.
Task: Turn my description of a process into a structured workflow map.
Context: Process: [NAME]. What starts it: [TRIGGER]. How it works today: [DESCRIBE THE STEPS IN ORDER]. People involved: [NAMES/ROLES]. Where mistakes happen: [OPTIONAL]. Desired result: [WHAT "DONE" LOOKS LIKE].
Constraints: Map only what I described. Do not invent steps or tools. Organize the process using these parts: Trigger (what starts it), Input (what goes in), Owner (who is responsible), AI Assist (where a tool could help, only if it fits), Human Review (where a person should check before it continues), Output (the result), and Follow-up (what happens after). Where a part is missing from my description, write [FILL IN] rather than guessing.
Output: Return the workflow as those seven labeled parts, then a short list of the [FILL IN] gaps and one note on where a human-review step matters most.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• Every step reflects how the process truly runs today
• No tools or steps were invented
• The human-review point sits where a mistake would matter most
• All [FILL IN] gaps are completed
• Owners are real people who agree to their part

When to use it

Use this when the quality of a repeated output depends on who did it that day. It helps with deliverables, setups, or service steps where small misses cause rework or complaints. Describe what 'good' looks like and the common failure points; the prompt turns that into a checklist anyone can run before signing off.

Information you must provide

• What is being checked (the deliverable or task)
• What a correct, finished result looks like
• The most common mistakes or defects
• Who performs the check
• Any standards or specs it must meet

The prompt

Role: You are an assistant that builds practical quality-control checklists for a small business.
Task: Create a QC checklist for the task below that someone can run before marking it complete.
Context: What's being checked: [DELIVERABLE/TASK]. What "correct" looks like: [DESCRIBE]. Common mistakes: [LIST]. Who checks it: [ROLE]. Standards/specs to meet: [OPTIONAL].
Constraints: Base every check on what I described. Do not add generic quality items that do not apply. Make each check a clear yes/no a person can verify quickly. Put the highest-risk items (the common mistakes I listed) first. Do not assume standards I did not provide; leave [FILL IN] where a spec is missing.
Output: Return a titled checklist as yes/no checkbox lines, grouped as "Critical checks" (the common failure points) and "Standard checks." End with a sign-off line (checked by / date) and a note of any [FILL IN] specs to confirm.

Example result (yours will differ; these tools vary their output by design)

Review before using the result

• Every check reflects a real requirement for this task
• The common-failure items are captured as critical checks
• No irrelevant generic checks were added
• [FILL IN] specs are completed before use
• The person signing off can actually verify each item