Skip to main content

AI prompts for startup founders

Investor updates that report honestly without alarming. Idea stress-tests that force skepticism. Job descriptions that filter on fit, not CV keywords. GTM plans that commit to one channel instead of covering every option.

10 free prompts · tested in ChatGPT, Claude & Gemini · browse the full library

Generate names for a product, startup, or feature

Brainstorm 20 name candidates with real category diversity between them.

Generate 20 candidate names for: thing to name.

The vibe I am going for: vibe
Names too close to existing brands or that I want to avoid: avoid
Constraints: no generic -ly / -ify / -ify suffixes; domain availability matters: domain matters

Rules:
- Mix categories: real words, invented words, compound words, metaphors, mythology references, foreign-language words.
- For each name, give a 5-word justification.
- Flag any that are too close to existing brands or trademarked terms.
- After the 20, pick your top 3 and explain why each one holds up under pressure.

Output as a numbered list.
Why it works
Forcing category diversity is the single change that prevents 20 variations of the same root word. Most naming AI defaults to compound SaaS words without this constraint.
What to swap
Vibe matters more than thing_to_name. 'Trustworthy legal-tech' and 'scrappy legal-tech' produce completely different lists.

Write an investor update that keeps backers engaged

Produce a monthly or quarterly email that reports honestly without alarming — and that investors will actually read.

Write an investor update email.

Company: company name
Period covered: period
Metrics this period (vs last period): metrics
Biggest win: biggest win
Biggest learning (honest, no spin): biggest learning
What I need from investors: specific ask
Focus for next period: next focus

Format:
- Subject line: "[Company] Update — [Month/Quarter]"
- 3–5 short paragraphs, no headers
- Lead with one metric that tells the story of the period
- End with the specific ask as a direct question
- Total length: under 300 words

Rules:
- No "we're excited to share", "we've been heads-down", or "incredible momentum"
- The biggest learning must name what went wrong or what surprised you. A reframed positive does not count
Why it works
Founders over-report or under-report. This five-field structure mirrors what experienced investors say they actually want in under 300 words: metrics, honest learning, and a specific ask.
What to swap
The biggest learning field is the one most founders sanitise. Investors read sanitised updates as a signal of low self-awareness.

Pressure-test a startup idea before you build anything

Find the fatal flaw in an idea before it costs money or time.

Stress-test the startup idea below. I want skepticism. Do not encourage me.

The idea: idea
What I already know about the market: existing knowledge
What I have already tested: already tested

For each of the six lenses below, give:
- A 2-sentence stress test (what would have to be true for this to fail here)
- The single biggest unanswered question in this lens

**Lenses:**
1. **Customer** — who specifically would pay, and what is their existing behavior that proves the pain is real?
2. **Problem** — is this a vitamin (nice to have) or a painkiller (must have)?
3. **Alternative** — why do existing solutions fail, and why hasn't the gap been filled already?
4. **Distribution** — how do you reach the first 100 paying customers without a brand or budget?
5. **Moat** — what makes this defensible once it works?
6. **Timing** — what is true now that was not true two years ago?

End with: the one lens where the idea is most likely to fail, and the cheapest way to test it this week.
Why it works
Most validation frameworks produce confirmation. Requiring the unanswered question per lens forces genuine skepticism and surfaces the failure mode before it costs anything.
What to swap
Answer the lenses yourself before pasting — the model's stress test is only as sharp as the raw input you give it.

Write a job description that brings in the right person

Produce a posting that filters out mismatches before the first application.

Write a job description for: role title.

Company stage and context: company context (e.g. "15-person Series A, first dedicated hire for this function, no existing process")
What this person will own in 90 days (specific outcomes, no responsibility lists): 90 day outcomes
What this person will NOT do (that a similar role elsewhere might): not this job
One deal-breaker for us: our dealbreaker
One deal-breaker for the right candidate: candidate dealbreaker
Compensation range: comp range

Structure:
1. One-paragraph company context — stage, traction, why this hire now
2. What you will own (90-day framing, no responsibility list)
3. What this is not
4. What we are looking for (3–5 signals, no requirements checklist)
5. Compensation and structure
6. How to apply — include one specific instruction that filters out copy-paste applications

No corporate language. Write in the voice of a direct manager.
Why it works
Most JDs describe the aspirational version of the role. The 90-day outcomes and 'what this is not' sections are the exclusion mechanisms that bring in candidates who want this specific job.
What to swap
The 90-day ownership section is the hardest field. If you can't write specific outcomes, you don't yet know what you're hiring for.

Build a go-to-market strategy from a product overview

Get from 'we've built X' to a structured launch plan committed to a single channel bet.

Build a go-to-market strategy for the product below.

Product overview: product overview
Stage: stage (e.g. "pre-launch", "first 10 customers", "scaling past 100")
What I know about who buys this: icp notes

Produce:
1. **ICP definition** — one specific type of company or person, described by observable behavior. Firmographic category is not enough: "Mid-market SaaS" is not an ICP.
2. **First-channel bet** — one channel only, with the reasoning for why it is the highest-leverage first move.
3. **Messaging by buying role**: for each person involved in the purchase (economic buyer, champion, blocker) — the one thing they care about most.
4. **The objection you will hear most** — and the one-sentence response.
5. **30-day success marker** — the specific, observable signal that tells you this GTM bet is working.

Do not give me three channel options. Pick one and commit to the reasoning.
Why it works
GTM plans that cover every channel give no guidance on where to start. Forcing a single first-channel bet surfaces the actual conviction level — and makes the plan executable.
What to swap
The ICP field must describe a real company or a real person. A market segment is too coarse, and the more specific the ICP, the more useful every other section becomes.

Outline a pitch that argues rather than describes

Structure a fundraising or sales pitch around a single claim you are willing to defend.

Outline a pitch for this company.

What we do: what we do
Who has the problem, and what they do today instead: status quo
Why now — what changed that makes this possible or necessary: why now
Evidence we have: evidence
The audience and what they are deciding: audience decision

Structure the pitch as an argument:
1. The claim — one sentence the audience will either believe or not
2. The problem, stated through what people currently do instead. Not market size.
3. Why now, with the specific change. "AI is advancing" is not a why-now.
4. What we do, described by what it changes for the user
5. The evidence, weakest-to-strongest, ending on the strongest
6. The objection the audience is already forming, addressed directly
7. The ask, specific

For each section: one line on what it must accomplish, and the single strongest thing we have to accomplish it. Where we have nothing, say "no evidence". Do not fill the gap with a claim.
Why it works
Describing the problem through the current workaround makes it concrete and, unlike market size, it cannot be waved away.
What to swap
Be honest in `evidence`. An outline built on evidence you do not have collapses in the first question.

Plan a pricing change without guessing

Design a pricing change with a hypothesis, a test, and a rollback plan.

Help me plan a pricing change.

Current pricing: current pricing
Change I am considering: proposed change
Why I think it is right: my reasoning
Customer segments and what each values: segments
Current volume and churn: current metrics

Work through:
1. What the change assumes about willingness to pay, and how confident that assumption is
2. Segment by segment: who pays more, who pays less, who leaves
3. The revenue arithmetic under a pessimistic, expected, and optimistic response
4. How to test this without changing prices for existing customers — new cohorts, a landing-page test, or a limited segment
5. Grandfathering: what existing customers are told, and whether the migration is worth the trust cost
6. The rollback plan, and what makes rollback expensive — announcements, contracts, published pricing
7. The metric that tells us within time horizon whether this worked, and the number at which we reverse

Do not recommend "test it and see". Name the test.
Why it works
Point 6 is what founders skip: pricing changes are much harder to reverse than to make, and the cost lands in the announcement long before the config.
What to swap
`segments` should be based on what people actually do. Your pricing tiers are the thing you are testing, so they cannot also be the lens.

Plan the first ten customers by name

Turn a go-to-market idea into a named list of people to approach this week.

Help me get to my first ten customers.

What we sell: product
Who I think needs it most: target
Why they would switch from what they do now: switching reason
My existing network in this space: network
What I can offer early customers that I cannot offer at scale: early offer
Time I can spend per week on this: weekly time

Produce:
1. The tightest definition of the first customer — narrower than my "target". Say what to cut and why.
2. Where exactly ten of these people can be found and reached this week. Name actual places; "channels" is too vague.
3. Who in my network is one introduction away, and the introduction request to send
4. The opening message, built around the switching reason and never around the product
5. What to offer the first ten that is genuinely valuable and does not create an obligation I cannot scale
6. What would tell me within four weeks that this segment is wrong, so I narrow again instead of pushing harder

Do not suggest content marketing, SEO, or paid acquisition. Ten customers is a manual problem.
Why it works
Forcing named places and a narrower segment is what turns a GTM plan into something you can do on Monday.
What to swap
`early_offer` should cost you time. Equity and permanent discounts compound as liabilities; founder time does not.

Build a hiring scorecard before you interview

Define what you are assessing and how you will score it, before meeting anyone.

Build an interview scorecard for this role.

The role: role
What this person must accomplish in their first six months: six month outcomes
What the job looks like day to day: daily reality
Constraints of the environment: environment
Who they work with most: key relationships

Produce:
1. Four to six competencies, derived from the six-month outcomes. Each must be something the job actually requires — cut anything you cannot tie to an outcome.
2. For each: what strong looks like, what adequate looks like, and the specific weak signal
3. One question per competency that asks for a past example. No hypotheticals
4. For each question, the follow-up that distinguishes someone who did it from someone who watched it happen
5. What this scorecard cannot assess, and how else to get at it
6. The disqualifiers — things that override a strong score elsewhere

Do not include "culture fit", "passion", or any competency you cannot describe a weak signal for.
Why it works
Writing the weak signal for each competency before interviewing is what stops the scorecard being retrofitted to whoever you liked most.
What to swap
`six_month_outcomes` drives everything. If you cannot write them, you are not ready to interview.

Prepare for the questions you do not want

Anticipate and prepare honest answers to the hardest questions in a board or investor meeting.

Prepare me for the hard questions in this meeting.

The meeting: meeting type
What I am presenting: the update
The numbers, including the bad ones: metrics
What I am worried they will ask: my worry
What I am asking them for: the ask

Produce:
1. The eight questions a well-prepared, skeptical attendee would ask — ordered by how much they would hurt, hardest first
2. For each: what they are actually trying to establish underneath the question
3. For each: an honest answer. Where the honest answer is bad, give the version that is honest and still constructive. Never give the version that dodges.
4. The question I have no good answer to. Name it and say what I should do before the meeting to change that.
5. What I should raise myself before being asked, because it lands better volunteered
6. What in my update will be read as evasive even though it is not, and how to reword it

Assume they have read the numbers and will notice anything omitted.
Why it works
Point 5 is the highest-value output — the difference between disclosing a problem and being caught with one is mostly who raised it.
What to swap
Include the bad numbers in `metrics`. Prep built on the good ones is prep for a meeting that will not happen.

Frequently asked questions

Investor updates that report honestly without alarming. Idea stress-tests that force skepticism. Job descriptions that filter on fit, not CV keywords. GTM plans that commit to one channel instead of covering every option. This page collects 10 free, copy-pasteable founders & startups prompts, each tested in ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini with a one-line rationale and the fields you need to swap in.