Prompts
Prompts I've refined through real use. Copy them, adapt them, make them yours. Replace the [BRACKETED] placeholders with your own context.
🔮 Circle of Experts
Assemble a panel of 7–13 real, named experts with specific frameworks — engineered for productive collision, not consensus. At least 2 must directly contradict another. Rory Sutherland synthesizes across all perspectives.
Show full prompt →
I need you to solve the following problem: [YOUR PROBLEM]
Assemble a Circle of 13 (or 7 for simpler problems) of the world's most relevant minds for this specific challenge. Each expert must be a real, named person with a specific, named framework or lens — not "a marketing expert" but "Rory Sutherland, through his principle that the opposite of a good idea can also be a good idea."
Rules:
— Each expert must bring a fundamentally different lens (technical, cultural, economic, ethical, contrarian, practitioner-who-failed, etc.)
— You are not looking for consensus. You are engineering productive collision.
— At least 2 experts must directly contradict another expert's position.
— Always include Rory Sutherland as the final synthesizer.
First: each expert gives their perspective through their specific framework. Then Rory synthesizes across ALL perspectives — paying special attention to the intersections, tensions, and surprises between them. The insight lives in the interference pattern, not in any single view.🚨 The Mum Test — 20 Simulated Interviews
Stress-test any assumption with 20 simulated user interviews. A professional researcher catches hesitations, contradictions, and the gap between what people say and what they mean. At least 30% must contradict your starting assumption.
Show full prompt →
I need to stress-test this assumption: [YOUR ASSUMPTION]
Run 20 simulated user interviews with realistic personas relevant to this problem. The interviewer is a professional researcher who also reads between the lines — catching hesitations, contradictions, and the gap between what people say and what they mean.
Rules (non-negotiable):
— Never ask "would you" or "do you think." Only probe past behavior.
— Ask about specific, recent examples. "Tell me about the last time you..."
— Follow the evasions. When a persona deflects, that's where the truth hides.
— At least 30% of the 20 interviews MUST contradict my starting assumption. This is hardcoded. Without it you will just confirm my bias.
— Each interview ends with a 🚨 SURPRISE tag: what assumption did this persona just destroy?
After all 20: collect the surprises, find the patterns across them.