Copy

DESCRIPTION: Collect your inputs and run a targeted web scan for recent benchmarks and competitor calculators to inform the concept.

TASK: Create a concise content-to-proof audit using my inputs plus fresh web context. Output a structured research pack to use in later prompts.

ROLE: Principal Product Marketing Strategist with web search capability

INPUTS:

- **Source_Type:** [Website / Deck / Data File / Case Study]
- **Source_URL_or_Content:** [URL or paste]
- **Product_or_Service:** [Name]
- **ICP_Summary:** [Who buys, size, region, role]
- **Top_3_Pains:** [Bulleted list]
- **Desired_Proof_Metric:** [Time saved / Cost saved / ROI / Efficiency % / Payback period]
- **Known_Benchmarks_or_Customer_Stats:** [Any metrics you have]
- **Funnel_Placement:** [Homepage hero / Pricing / Demo page / Post-demo / SDR follow-up]
- **Preferred_Tooling:** [Outgrow / Typeform / Coda / Custom JS / HubSpot]
- **Competitors_to_Check:** [Names or URLs]

Auto Web Pulls the model will fetch:

- Your website pricing or product pages and any public case studies
- Competitor ROI tools or calculators
- Industry benchmarks for the Desired_Proof_Metric within last 12–24 months
- Relevant primary or official sources: vendor docs, industry associations, government stats

WORKFLOW:

1. Parse inputs for product, audience, pains, and desired proof metric.
2. If URL provided: crawl the page hierarchy and extract claims, metrics, and value props. If pasted content: parse headings, bullet points, and any numbers.
3. Web search tasks:

a) Find competitor calculators and ROI pages. Capture URLs, purpose, and any formulas or inputs they disclose.

b) Pull recent industry benchmarks aligned to Desired_Proof_Metric from primary or official sources. Prefer last 12–24 months.

c) Verify any Known_Benchmarks_or_Customer_Stats against public references when possible.

1. Selection criteria: keep sources with clear methodology, recency within 24 months, and relevance to ICP. Discard marketing fluff with no numbers.
2. De-duplication: merge overlapping stats; if two sources conflict, prefer primary or larger sample size.
3. Synthesize an audit: map pains to measurable levers, note gaps, and list candidate inputs users could provide.
4. Produce a Research Pack with short inline citations like (Source, Year) and raw links at the end.

OUTPUT FORMAT:

- Audit Summary: 5–8 bullets
- Pain-to-Proof Map: table with Pain, Lever, Possible User Input, Output Metric
- Benchmarks: 4–8 items with metric, value, and citation
- Competitor Examples: 3–5 with what they calculate and link
- Constraints or Data Gaps: 3–6 bullets
- Raw Sources: bullet list of URLs

RULES:

- Keep it skimmable; no chain-of-thought.
- Cite any web-informed claim inline with (Source, Year).
- Mask any sensitive data if pasted.
- Use neutral ranges when exact numbers vary.

FALLBACK:

- If web data is thin: use analogous category benchmarks and label them as proxy benchmarks. Ask me to approve or supply one internal metric, then rerun.

Copy

DESCRIPTION: Turn the research into 1–3 interactive tool concepts with clear inputs, outputs, formulas, and impact scores.

TASK: Propose and score calculator concepts that best demonstrate value for our ICP and funnel placement.

ROLE: Senior Growth PM with pricing and analytics expertise

INPUTS: Use ONLY the Research Pack from Prompt 1. Do not ask me for anything new.

WORKFLOW:

1. Extract top pains and the Desired_Proof_Metric.
2. Generate 3 concepts: ROI Calculator, Efficiency Estimator, and a Custom Configurator tailored to the product.
3. For each concept:

a) Define the user inputs: 5–10 fields max with sensible defaults.

b) Define output metrics: 2–4 numbers such as annual savings, hours saved, payback period, efficiency gain.

c) Provide simplified formulas using benchmark ranges or verified internal stats. Note sources inline like (Source, Year).

d) UX notes: where to place it, how to visualize, and the Aha moment it triggers.

1. Score each concept on Impact, Ease to Build, Data Confidence, and Fit for Funnel Placement. 1–5 scale. Explain each score in one line.
2. Selection criteria: prioritize highest composite score. Tie-breaker: earliest time-to-value and available data confidence.
3. Produce an Inputs Catalog across concepts with field names, descriptions, data types, and validation rules. De-duplicate overlapping inputs.

OUTPUT FORMAT:

- Concepts Summary: 3 concepts with Objective, Inputs, Outputs, Formulas, UX notes, Aha moment, and inline citations
- Scoring Table: Impact, Ease, Data Confidence, Funnel Fit, Composite
- Inputs Catalog: field, description, type, allowed values, default, validation
- Recommendation: 1–2 paragraphs on the top pick and why

RULES:

- 700–1,000 words. No chain-of-thought.
- Cite any web-informed benchmarks with (Source, Year).
- Keep formulas readable and label any assumptions.

FALLBACK:

- If data confidence is low: add a Data Capture Variant that first collects a single anchor metric from the user to improve accuracy.

Copy

DESCRIPTION: Generate the finished 'Eureka Moment’ and a build-ready brief for implementation.

TASK: Produce the final artifact with named sections and copy, plus technical specs for building the calculator.

ROLE: Product Marketing Lead and Solutions Architect

INPUTS: Use ONLY the outputs from Prompt 2.

WORKFLOW:

1. Take the recommended concept and populate the full deliverable using the template below.
2. Draft copy for each section and include simplified formulas, assumptions, and where to show citations inline like (Source, Year).
3. Provide technical implementation notes: tooling, embed points, data validation, and tracking.
4. Define success metrics and an A/B plan: conversion goals, micro-conversions, and events to track.
5. QA checklist: accessibility, mobile, latency, and privacy items.
6. Output the final deliverable followed by a compact build brief.

OUTPUT FORMAT:

Use this exact template first:

# 🔍 Eureka Moment

## Source

- Type: {{from inputs}}
- URL / Reference: {{from inputs}}
- Product or Topic: {{from inputs}}

---

## 1. Summary of Review

Key Observations:

- {{3–5 bullets based on research}}

Missed Opportunities:

- {{2–4 bullets with gaps to close}}

---

## 2. Recommended Interactive Tool Concepts

Concept 1: ROI Calculator

- Objective: {{how it proves value}}
- User Inputs: {{5–10 fields}}
- Output: {{2–4 metrics}}
- Formula / Logic (simplified): {{inline}}
- Aha Moment: {{1 sentence}}
- Citations: {{inline markers like (Source, Year)}}

Concept 2: Efficiency Estimator

- Objective: {{...}}
- Inputs: {{...}}
- Output: {{...}}
- Visualization: {{...}}
- Citations: {{...}}

Concept 3: Custom Configurator

- Objective: {{...}}
- Inputs: {{...}}
- Output: {{...}}
- Aha Moment: {{...}}
- Citations: {{...}}

---

## 3. Implementation Notes

- Embed Point: {{hero / pricing / demo page / deck slide}}
- Visual Format: {{inline widget / modal / page}}
- Technical Tools: {{preferred tooling}}
- CTA Recommendation: “Run your numbers → See your ROI”
- Tracking: {{events and goals}}

---

## 4. Expected Outcome

- Goal: Turn passive readers into engaged participants
- Conversion Effect: +25–40% more demo interest
- Psychological Trigger: Ownership via self-quantification
- Citations: {{any supporting benchmarks}}

Then append a Build Brief:

- Data Model: list inputs, types, units, defaults
- Calculation Logic: formulas and constants with citations
- Validation Rules: min, max, required, error copy
- UX Flow: steps, loading states, mobile behavior
- Analytics: events, parameters, dashboards
- Implementation Plan: owner, tool, timeline, QA

RULES:

- Keep to 700–1,000 words for the Review; Build Brief can extend as needed.
- Include inline citations wherever benchmarks or assumptions appear.
- No chain-of-thought; crisp, ship-ready content.

FALLBACK:

- If any critical benchmark is missing: propose a one-question calibration step inside the tool and show ranges until user provides it.

Copy

DESCRIPTION: Pressure-test the concept with likely objections and provide crisp counters tied to the artifact.

TASK: List at least 2 objections and write 2–3 line responses referencing the calculator logic, assumptions, or citations.

ROLE: Enterprise AE with product marketing chops

INPUTS: Use ONLY the final deliverable from Prompt 3.

WORKFLOW:

1. Identify 2–3 common buyer objections about calculators or ROI claims.
2. For each: write a concise counter tied to our data sources, formulas, and the calibration flow.
3. Add one line on how sales should pivot to a next step: share results, book a deeper modeling session, or invite to import real data.

OUTPUT FORMAT:

- Objection 1: {{text}}

Counter: {{2–3 lines with references}}

Next Step: {{1 line CTA}}

- Objection 2: {{text}}

Counter: {{2–3 lines with references}}

Next Step: {{1 line CTA}}

RULES:

- Keep it practical; no defensiveness.
- Reference citations inline like (Source, Year).

Copy

DESCRIPTION: Create a one-slide version for reps to use in outbound or live calls.

TASK: Output a single slide script with headline, 3 bullets, and one calculator result visual.

ROLE: Sales Enablement Lead

INPUTS: Use ONLY the final deliverable from Prompt 3.

WORKFLOW:

1. Craft a high-impact headline that mirrors the Aha moment.
2. Choose the strongest metric and wrap it with a short narrative.
3. Provide a simple visual spec: before vs after bars or payback dial.
4. Add a CTA that tees up the interactive tool.

OUTPUT FORMAT:

- Slide Title
- Three Bullets
- Visual Spec
- CTA Line

RULES:

- 80 words max. No citations on this slide.