Strategic Decision Adviser
Choose the strongest strategic option under resource, timeline, stakeholder, and risk constraints.
Customise & copy
Add the context you have. The prompt updates as you work.
List 2-4 realistic options, with a short description of each.
Include budget, staffing, capability, capacity, or operational constraints.
Select the level that best reflects the decision deadline.
Summarize the outcomes that matter most to executives, customers, staff, or other decision-makers.
Choose the level of downside the decision-maker is prepared to accept.
Live prompt
5 fieldsAct as a pragmatic strategic adviser. Based only on the information provided, choose the strongest path and do not ask follow-up questions. If information is incomplete, state the most important assumption briefly and proceed. Decision options: {{decision_options}} Current resource constraints: {{resource_constraints}} Deadline or urgency level: High: decision required within 1 month Key stakeholder priorities: {{stakeholder_priorities}} Acceptable risk tolerance: Moderate: accept measured risk for meaningful upside Return exactly this format: RECOMMENDATION [Name one option and state the decision in 1-2 sentences.] OPTION ASSESSMENT 1. [Option name] Pros: [Concise bullets or semicolon-separated points] Cons: [Concise bullets or semicolon-separated points] Timeline fit: [How well it fits the urgency and why] 2. [Option name] Pros: [Concise bullets or semicolon-separated points] Cons: [Concise bullets or semicolon-separated points] Timeline fit: [How well it fits the urgency and why] [Continue for each provided option.] TIMELINE PRESSURE [State whether the deadline materially changes the decision, including the main timing trade-off.] DECISION RATIONALE [Give 2-4 concise sentences linking the recommendation to constraints, stakeholder priorities, risk tolerance, and urgency.] KEY ASSUMPTION [State one assumption only if needed; otherwise write None.]
Proof before you use it
A real example
Tested on gpt-5.6-luna on 2026-09-10
{
"urgency_level": "Moderate: decision required within 1-3 months",
"risk_tolerance": "Low: protect stability and avoid significant downside",
"decision_options": "Option A: Replace the hospital's electronic health record system with a cloud platform this year. Option B: Upgrade the existing system's medication and scheduling modules. Option C: Join a regional health-system procurement for a shared platform next year.",
"resource_constraints": "The hospital has $4 million in capital funding, a small internal IT team, limited clinician release time for training, and a hard requirement to maintain emergency department operations throughout implementation.",
"stakeholder_priorities": "Clinicians prioritize patient safety and usability, the CFO prioritizes predictable total cost, the board wants better interoperability, and the CIO wants to reduce dependence on the current vendor."
}A small ritual that works
How to use it
- 01List 2-4 realistic decision options with short descriptions.
- 02Describe current budget, staffing, capability, capacity, or operational constraints.
- 03Select the urgency level and summarize key stakeholder priorities.
- 04Select the acceptable risk tolerance.
Why it works
The prompt turns a strategic decision into a structured comparison. It asks the adviser to select one option, assess every provided option against pros, cons, and timeline fit, then connect the recommendation to resources, stakeholder priorities, risk tolerance, and urgency. The instruction to proceed without follow-up questions keeps the response focused, while the assumption field creates a clear place to disclose a material gap in the information. The fixed headings also make the reasoning easy to scan and compare across decisions.
Where it fails
The prompt is less suitable when the decision depends on detailed financial modeling, specialist analysis, extensive stakeholder negotiation, or information that cannot be represented adequately in the five input fields. Its instruction to choose the strongest path also compresses situations where several options remain genuinely equivalent or where the correct action is to gather more information before deciding. The format allows only one explicit assumption, which may not be enough when multiple uncertainties materially affect the recommendation.
Customisation tips
Add inputs for the decision horizon, quantitative success measures, non-negotiable constraints, and dependencies when those factors matter. If options require financial comparison, include fields for expected cost, revenue, payback period, or available forecast data. Replace the single assumption instruction with a short assumptions-and-unknowns section if the decision is information-sensitive. You can also add a confidence or evidence-basis section, provided it remains consistent with the concise decision format. Keep the option labels and descriptions specific enough that each can be assessed on the same criteria.
Watch-outs
- The recommendation is constrained by the information supplied in the input fields, so vague descriptions of options, resources, or stakeholder priorities leave less basis for a differentiated decision.
- The prompt requires an assessment for each provided option but does not define a separate structure for options with materially different levels of detail.
- The urgency and risk fields use broad categories, which may oversimplify decisions where timing or downside exposure varies across several dimensions.
- The instruction to state one assumption only can encourage compression of important uncertainty into a single statement.
Works in
Was this useful?
Submit your variation
If your version helps, it may be published with your name and a link back to you.
Want to make AI useful across your team? Explore Atul's training.