Weekly Leadership Performance Digest
Turn weekly revenue and deal results into a concise, leadership-ready performance digest.
Customise & copy
Add the context you have. The prompt updates as you work.
Enter the total revenue generated during the reporting week.
Enter the number of deals closed as won during the reporting week.
Enter the number of deals closed as lost during the reporting week.
Enter the first date of the reporting period.
Enter the final date of the reporting period.
Live prompt
5 fieldsCreate a concise weekly performance digest for leadership covering {{week_start_date}} through {{week_end_date}}. Use the provided figures exactly: total revenue of {{total_revenue}}, {{deals_won}} deals won, and {{deals_lost}} deals lost. Infer reasonable business context without asking questions or inventing unsupported details. Write exactly three short paragraphs, with each paragraph beginning with its required label: Highlights: Focus on revenue and wins. Concerns: Address lost deals and clearly state relevant risks or implications. Week ahead priorities: Identify practical focus areas based on the results. Return only the three labeled paragraphs, with no bullets, headings beyond the required labels, hype, unnecessary politeness, or commentary about the process.
Proof before you use it
A real example
Tested on gpt-5.6-luna on 2026-09-10
{
"deals_won": "11",
"deals_lost": "14",
"total_revenue": "$86,200",
"week_end_date": "2025-06-22",
"week_start_date": "2025-06-16"
}A small ritual that works
How to use it
- 01Enter the total revenue for the period.
- 02Enter the counts of deals won and deals lost.
- 03Enter the week start date and week end date.
- 04Review the three-paragraph digest and make any final edits.
Why it works
The prompt gives the writer a defined reporting period, three required business figures, and a clear audience: leadership. Its three-paragraph structure assigns one purpose to each paragraph—wins, concerns, and priorities—while the required labels make the digest easy to scan. The instruction to use figures exactly protects the supplied facts, and the output constraints keep the response concise and focused.
Where it fails
The structure cannot support specific explanations for why deals were won or lost because it provides only totals, not deal-level context, causes, pipeline information, or comparison periods. Its instruction to infer reasonable business context therefore limits the analysis to cautious implications rather than evidence-based diagnosis. The text-based inputs also leave formatting and interpretation of dates, currency, and counts dependent on what the user enters.
Customisation tips
Add variables for sales targets, prior-period results, win rate, pipeline value, average deal size, and reasons for wins or losses if leadership needs deeper analysis. Clarify the preferred date and currency formats, and define what qualifies as a relevant risk. The paragraph labels can remain fixed while the focus of each section is adapted to a particular leadership audience, such as finance, sales, or operations.
Watch-outs
- The prompt requires exact figures but does not define validation or normalization rules for entries such as currency symbols, decimal values, or date formats.
- The instruction to infer context should not be expanded into inventing causes, forecasts, targets, or performance comparisons that are not supplied.
- Exactly three short paragraphs and return-only formatting leave little room for caveats, so important limitations may need to be represented through carefully scoped wording.
- The week-ahead priorities are based on the available totals; actionable recommendations may remain broad unless additional operational context is provided.
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.