What each part of the prompt does
- First few seconds
- People decide how to take a message almost immediately. Naming that first reaction tells you quickly whether the draft needs work at all.
- Quoted watch-outs
- Absolute words and side comments about old disputes are the usual triggers. Quoting them exactly shows you what to change instead of giving a general warning about tone.
- Is the ask there?
- Emotional drafts often explain feelings at length and never say what should happen next. Step 4 checks the request is present and easy to find.
- Boundaries stay
- Step 5 stops the model from turning a clear limit into an apology. Calmer should mean easier to hear, not weaker.
Variations to try
Same idea, one thing changed.
Work email to a senior colleague Before I send this message, tell me how it is likely to land with the person reading it, and offer calmer versions that keep my meaning. Inputs: - My draft: [DRAFT] - Who it is to and our relationship: [RECIPIENT] - What I want to happen after they read it: [GOAL] - What has already been said, briefly: [CONTEXT] Steps: 1. In one sentence, describe how the reader will probably feel in the first few seconds of reading. 2. Flag wording that could sound demanding, blaming or sarcastic, including words like always, never, just and obviously, and any point that brings up old disagreements. 3. Flag sentences that are long, vague or ask several things at once. 4. Check that the message actually asks for what I want in [GOAL]. If the request is missing or buried, say so. 5. Keep my meaning and my facts. Do not make me apologise for things I did not mention, and do not soften a boundary I am setting. Format: - First reaction: one sentence. - Watch-outs: a short bullet list quoting the exact words. - Version A: same length, calm and professional, suitable for a senior colleague, with the request in the first two lines. - Version B: the shortest version that still gets the point across. Quality check: Confirm both versions still contain the request and any boundary from my draft.
Reply to an angry message Before I send this message, tell me how it is likely to land with the person reading it, and offer calmer versions that keep my meaning. Inputs: - My draft: [DRAFT] - Who it is to and our relationship: [RECIPIENT] - What I want to happen after they read it: [GOAL] - What has already been said, briefly: [CONTEXT] - The message I am replying to: [THEIR MESSAGE] Steps: 1. In one sentence, describe what the other person seems to need from their message, then how they will probably feel reading my reply. 2. Flag wording that could sound demanding, blaming or sarcastic, including words like always, never, just and obviously, and any point that brings up old disagreements. 3. Flag sentences that are long, vague or ask several things at once. 4. Check that the message actually asks for what I want in [GOAL]. If the request is missing or buried, say so. 5. Keep my meaning and my facts. Do not make me apologise for things I did not mention, and do not soften a boundary I am setting. Format: - First reaction: one sentence. - Watch-outs: a short bullet list quoting the exact words. - Version A: same length, calmer and clearer, written as I would say it. - Version B: the shortest version that still gets the point across. Quality check: Confirm both versions still contain the request and any boundary from my draft.
If the result isn't right
- Wait ten minutes after writing before you run this; you will judge the suggestions better.
- Keep [CONTEXT] factual. If you describe the other person as unreasonable, the rewrite tends to inherit that view.
- Say the chosen version out loud. If you would not say it face to face in those words, adjust it.
- For very sensitive conversations, use the result to plan what to say in person rather than sending a long text.