15 Sales Prompts for ChatGPT & Claude (Each One Actually Run)

Write a cold email to this prospect using only the research provided. Open with the single most specific, recent fact from the research and connect it to one problem we plausibly solve — no flattery, no 'I hope this finds you well'. State what we do in one plain sentence, then make one small ask (a reply or a look, not a meeting). Use only facts from the research and product description; if the research is too thin to personalize honestly, say so and list what to find instead of writing a generic email. Begin your response with the email itself: subject line first, then body. Research: {{research}} Our product: {{product}} Sender: {{sender}}

Write five subject line candidates for this cold email. Constraints: each must be honest about what the email contains (no fake 'Re:', no fake urgency, no clickbait), short enough for a phone inbox, and specific to this prospect or their problem — a subject that could top any email to anyone fails. For each candidate, one line on the psychological angle it plays (curiosity, relevance, peer proof, directness) and the risk it carries. Then recommend one and say why. Do not predict open rates. The email: {{email}} The prospect: {{prospect}}

Write a follow-up email for this thread. Rule: it must give the prospect something new — a relevant resource, a sharper framing of their problem, or an easier version of the ask — never 'just bumping this' or guilt. Read the thread and pick the follow-up angle the silence most likely calls for, then state in one line (before the email, labeled 'Angle:') which angle you chose and why. Then the email. Use only facts from the thread and the material provided; do not invent new offers or urgency. Thread so far: {{thread}} Material we could share: {{material}}

Write the final email in this dead thread. Tone: gracious exit, zero guilt, zero passive aggression — assume they were busy, not rude. Close the loop in a way that makes replying easy if timing was the issue: state you'll stop following up, leave one concrete artifact they can use without talking to us, and one sentence on when it makes sense to reconnect. Do not manufacture scarcity or a fake deadline. Begin your response with the email, subject line first. Thread summary: {{thread}} Artifact we can leave: {{artifact}}

Write a LinkedIn connection request note to this person. It must fit LinkedIn's short note field, reference one specific thing they said or did (from the research), and contain no pitch, no link, and no meeting ask — the only goal is an accepted connection from a person who'd recognize why you asked. If the research contains nothing specific enough to reference honestly, say so and list two things to look for instead of writing a generic note. Begin your response with the note itself. Research: {{research}} Who I am: {{sender}}

From these raw signals about a company, extract the strongest outreach angle for what we sell. Under a heading 'Signals ranked', list each signal with a one-line read of what it implies about their current pain and priorities, ranked by how directly it connects to our product. Under 'The angle', commit to one angle: the specific tension between what they're visibly trying to do and what our product changes. Under 'Do not use', flag any signal that would feel invasive or creepy to reference in an email. Base everything strictly on the signals given. Signals: {{signals}} Our product: {{product}}

A prospect replied with mild interest. Write the response that converts interest into a concrete next step without overwhelming them: answer their actual question first in plain language, then offer exactly one next step sized to their energy level (a curious one-liner gets a resource; a detailed question gets a short call offer). Read their reply carefully for what they did NOT ask — do not dump features they showed no interest in. Use only facts from the material provided. Begin your response with the email. Their reply: {{reply}} Original thread: {{thread}} Product facts: {{facts}}

Design an outreach sequence for this prospect segment: for each touch give the channel, the day offset, the job that touch does (labeled 'Job:'), and a two-line sketch of its content — not full copy. Constraints: every touch must carry something new (no 'bumping'); mix channels only where the segment plausibly lives; the sequence ends with a clean breakup, not a fade-out. Then, under 'Kill criteria', state the reply signals that should immediately end or redirect the sequence. Ground everything in the segment description — where it's too vague to choose a channel or angle, say so explicitly. Segment: {{segment}} Product: {{product}} Assets we have: {{assets}}

This sequence underperforms. Diagnose why from the copy alone: for each touch, name the single biggest reply-killer (seller-centric opening, oversized ask, fake personalization, no new value, guilt) with the exact phrase as evidence, quoted. Then, under 'Rewrite priorities', rank the three changes that would most plausibly move replies, each tied to the evidence — not generic best practices. Judge only what's in the copy; where the problem could be targeting or deliverability instead of copy, say so explicitly rather than inventing a copy fix. Sequence: {{sequence}} Audience: {{audience}}

Build a discovery question plan for this call from the context given. Structure: under 'Must learn', the three unknowns that most determine whether this deal is real (from the context — not a generic BANT list); under 'Questions', an ordered sequence where each question earns the next, moving from their world to the problem to consequences — no question answerable by yes/no unless it's a deliberate commitment check, and no question whose answer is already in the context (asking those burns credibility); under 'Listen for', the specific answers that would qualify or disqualify. Context: {{context}} What we sell: {{product}}

Craft a response to this objection using only the facts provided. Structure: acknowledge the legitimate core of the objection in one sentence (find it — every objection has one); answer with specific evidence from the facts, clearly separating what we know from what varies by customer; end with a verification step the prospect can run themselves (a pilot, a reference call, a document) rather than asking them to take our word. If the facts don't actually answer the objection, say that plainly and state what we'd need to provide instead — never paper over a gap. Objection: {{objection}} Facts: {{facts}}

The prospect said it's too expensive. From the deal context, diagnose which kind of price objection this most likely is — no budget exists, budget exists but value unproven, cheaper competitor anchoring, or a negotiation opener — and commit to one diagnosis with the evidence from the context (labeled 'Diagnosis:'). Then write the response for THAT diagnosis: each type gets a different move (qualify out honestly, build a value case on their numbers, reframe the comparison, or hold with a concession path). Never respond with an unprompted discount. If the context can't distinguish between two diagnoses, give the one question that would. Context: {{context}}

The prospect is comparing us to a named competitor. Write the response: respect the competitor honestly (name one thing they're genuinely good at, from the facts), then draw the real dividing line — the difference in approach or fit that decides which buyer should pick which product — and land on which side THIS prospect's situation falls, using their context. Give them one sharp evaluation question to ask both vendors that we win on merit. Use only the provided facts about both products; where competitor facts are missing, say 'verify with them' rather than guessing. Their statement: {{statement}} Our facts: {{ours}} Competitor facts: {{theirs}} Prospect context: {{context}}

Your champion must sell this internally. From the deal context, write their ammunition: under 'The one-liner', how they should describe the purchase to an exec in a hallway; under 'The case', three arguments matched to what each named stakeholder cares about (from the context — finance argues differently than ops); under 'The objections they'll hit', the two most likely internal pushbacks with honest answers the champion can own; under 'What to ask for', the specific decision or meeting the champion should request. Everything grounded in the context — never invent ROI numbers; where a number is needed but missing, mark it '[their number needed]'. Context: {{context}}

This deal stalled. From the timeline, diagnose the most likely cause — champion lost power, priority shifted, a stakeholder objected off-stage, budget cycle, or we were the free education for a decision already made — and commit to one primary diagnosis with the timeline evidence (labeled 'Diagnosis:'), plus the strongest alternative and what would distinguish them. Then prescribe the single re-engagement move that tests your diagnosis without begging — a move that produces information whether or not they reply. If the timeline honestly supports 'this deal is dead', say so and prescribe the graceful close instead. Timeline: {{timeline}}