Best Claude Prompts for Writing (2026)

Here are my raw notes on [topic]: [paste everything, unsorted]. Build an outline for a [format, e.g. 1,500-word essay] aimed at [reader]. Group the notes into sections, put them in the order that makes the argument land, name the one idea each section has to deliver, and tell me which of my notes do not belong and why. Flag any point where the argument has a gap I have not filled.

Here is my outline: [paste]. Draft section [N] only, roughly [word count] words, for [reader]. Keep the argument moving, use concrete examples over abstractions, and do not restate the section heading in the first sentence. If a claim in this section needs evidence I have not given you, write the sentence and mark it [NEEDS SOURCE] rather than inventing a statistic.

Line edit this draft for tightness without changing my meaning or my voice: [paste]. Cut hedges, filler, and throat-clearing openers. Replace abstract nouns with the verbs hiding inside them. Break sentences that carry more than one idea. Return the edited text, then a short list of the five recurring habits you had to fix, so I can stop doing them.

Ignore the prose. Assess the structure of this piece: [paste]. What is the actual claim, and is it made early enough? Which sections earn their place and which are there out of habit? Where does the reader have to hold too much before you pay it off? Where is the order wrong? Give me a revised section order with a one-line reason for each move, and name the one cut that would improve it most.

Here are three samples of my writing: [paste]. First, describe my voice concretely: typical sentence length and rhythm, how I open and close, the words and constructions I use and the ones I avoid, how formal I am, how I handle humor and hedging. Then draft [the new piece] in that voice. Do not smooth it out, and do not add transitions I would never write.

Rewrite this for [new audience, e.g. a non-technical executive] without dumbing it down: [paste]. Change what you assume they already know, what needs defining, which details earn space, and what the opening has to do to hold them. Keep every claim the original makes. Afterwards, list what you removed and confirm none of it was load-bearing.

Cut this by 30 percent: [paste]. Take the weakest material first: repeated points, examples that duplicate each other, qualifications the reader does not need, and paragraphs that restate the previous one in new words. Show the cut version, then list what you removed grouped by reason, so I can argue back on anything that was actually doing work.

Here is the finished piece: [paste]. Write 10 title options that are accurate to what the piece actually delivers, ranging from plain and descriptive to sharper and more specific, with no curiosity-gap tricks. For your top three, write the opening sentence that would follow, and say what kind of reader each pairing selects for.

Here is a transcript of [interview / talk / meeting]: [paste]. Turn it into a [format] for [reader]. Keep the speaker's actual phrasing where it is good and quote it directly. Reorder freely for the argument, cut the digressions, and mark anything where the transcript is too unclear to paraphrase safely. List the three strongest quotable lines separately.

Read this as the most skeptical, well-informed person in my audience: [paste]. Which claims would they push back on, which evidence is thinner than it looks, where am I overclaiming, and what obvious counterargument have I failed to address? Quote the exact sentences that are the problem. Be specific and unkind; I would rather hear it now.

Do a consistency pass on this document: [paste]. Check that names, numbers, dates, terminology, and capitalization are used the same way throughout, that every claim the introduction promises is actually delivered, that internal references point to the right sections, and that nothing contradicts anything earlier. List every issue with the exact text and the location, and do not rewrite anything.