Most AI strategy advice is essentially a digital motivational poster.
It gives you safe, standard answers like “network more” or “post consistently” that sound good but completely ignore your actual reality. I stumbled upon a fantastic solution from a savvy professional who refused to settle for surface-level inputs. The original poster crafted a specific framework that forces ChatGPT to stop acting like a search engine and start thinking like a highly paid strategist.
The Logic Behind the Prompt
The core issue isn’t that the AI lacks knowledge; it is that it defaults to average, safe answers to please the user. This industry pro realized that valid advice becomes useless without deep context. By demanding a Decision Analysis approach, the prompt filters out generic best practices and focuses strictly on what is feasible for you right now.
Why This Approach Works
📌 Force Clarification First
The genius of this approach is that it stops the AI from answering immediately. The creator programmed it to ask 3-5 clarifying questions about your resources, constraints, and previous attempts before it offers a single suggestion. This mimics how a real consultant works; they have to diagnose the specific patient before they can prescribe a cure, ensuring the advice fits your unique situation.
✅ Prioritize Leverage Over Volume
Most prompts result in a generic list of ten things you “could” do, which usually leads to analysis paralysis. The original poster tweaked this instruction to identify only the top 2-3 highest-leverage actions based on an Impact x Feasibility ranking. It forces the AI to explain why these specific moves matter more than the twenty other options you could be pursuing, helping you allocate limited resources effectively.
💡 Expose Your Blind Spots
My favorite part of this setup is the mandatory What I’m Missing section. The expert included a specific instruction for the AI to challenge your faulty assumptions and highlight second-order effects. It is not just about telling you what to do; it is about warning you regarding the risks you are ignoring, such as hidden time costs or complexity you haven’t factored in.
Prompt of the Day
Here is the prompt the author shared. Paste this into a new chat to start the analysis:
“You are a senior strategy advisor with expertise in decision analysis, opportunity cost assessment, and high-stakes planning. Your job is to help me think strategically, not give me generic advice.
My situation: [Describe your situation, goal, constraints, resources, and what you’ve already tried]
Your task:
Ask 3-5 clarifying questions to understand my context deeply before giving any advice
Identify the 2-3 highest-leverage actions specific to MY situation (not generic best practices)
For each action, explain: • Why it matters MORE than the other 20 things I could do • What I’m likely underestimating (time, cost, risk, or complexity) • The real trade-offs and second-order effects
Challenge any faulty assumptions I’m making
Rank recommendations by Impact × Feasibility and explain your reasoning
Output as:
Strategic Analysis: [What’s really going on in my situation]
Top 3 Moves: [Ranked with rationale]
What I’m Missing: [Blind spots or risks I haven’t considered]
First Next Step: [Specific, actionable]
Be direct. Be specific. Think like a consultant paid to find the 20% of actions that drive 80% of results.”
If you want to see how others are tweaking this for their businesses, take a look at the full discussion on LinkedIn.
💡 FAQ & Troubleshooting
Will providing detailed background information cause the AI to lose track of the conversation?
Yes, this is a valid concern known as the “context window.” If your description of previous actions, restrictions, and resources is excessively long, the Large Language Model (LLM) may run out of resources and “forget” details mentioned at the start of the chat. To prevent this, keep your initial context summary concise or remind the AI of your core constraints if the conversation becomes lengthy.
Do “You are a [Expert]…” persona prompts always yield better advice?
Not necessarily. While personas help set the tone, strict role-playing constraints can sometimes limit the model’s capacity for originality or cause it to hallucinate when asked to prioritize complex data. It is often more effective to introduce a specific persona only when the standard output is too generic or drifting in the “wrong direction,” rather than using it as a default for every query.
Is the “ruthless” critique style difficult to manage?
It can be. Users adopting this strategy report that receiving ruthless feedback is “tough going at the start” compared to the AI’s usually polite tone. However, pushing through this initial discomfort is necessary to get past surface-level pleasantries and achieve meaningful progress that standard prompts rarely provide.
I made ChatGPT stop giving me generic advice and it’s like having a $500/hr strategist
byu/Crazy-Tip-3741 in