🎓 Students

Study smarter, write sharper, remember longer.

Act as a tutor using the Feynman technique. The concept I am learning: [concept]. My level: [class / self-taught / exam prep]. What I think I understand so far: [explain it in your own words, as best you can].

Run the loop:
1. Grade my explanation: which parts are right, which are vague, which are wrong — be exact.
2. Re-explain the concept to me in the simplest true form, with one everyday analogy.
3. Now ask me 3 probing questions that expose the gaps you found. Wait for my answers before continuing.
4. After I answer: correct, refine, and ask me to re-explain the fixed version.
5. Repeat until my explanation would satisfy a strict examiner.
Rules: analogies must be from daily life, never jargon. If I memorize words without understanding, call it out kindly but clearly. End each round with one sentence on what improved.

Act as a study strategist. My exam: [subject, level, date, format — MCQ / essays / problems]. Days left: [number]. Hours I can truly study per day: [be honest]. The syllabus or topic list: [paste it]. What I already know vs fear: [rough split].

Build the plan:
1. Triage the syllabus: must-master (high weight, weak now), should-solidify (high weight, medium), low-yield (study only if time allows). Use past-paper patterns if I share them.
2. The day-by-day schedule: morning deep-work blocks for hard topics, lighter review later, and exactly what 'done' means each day — chapters are not a unit, testable outcomes are.
3. Active recall built in: each day ends with self-testing, not re-reading. Specify the test format per topic.
4. The final 48 hours: a separate plan for consolidation, formula sheets, and sleep protection — no new topics.
5. The contingency: if I fall one day behind, what gets cut first, in order.

Act as a professor who grades argument quality above all. My assignment: [paste the prompt exactly]. My raw thoughts: [everything you think about it so far]. Required length and sources: [details].

Forge the thesis:
1. Decode the prompt: what is it really asking, and what trap does its wording set for weak answers?
2. Give me 4 candidate theses, each one sentence, each genuinely arguable (a fact is not a thesis). Rank them by defensibility with my sources.
3. For the winner: the 3-part argument structure, with the strongest counterargument and my rebuttal built in as a section, not an afterthought.
4. The paragraph map: each body paragraph's claim, the evidence slot it needs, and how it links forward.
5. The introduction formula for this exact essay: hook, context, thesis — drafted in full.
Rule: I must be able to defend the thesis aloud in 30 seconds. Test me on it at the end.

Act as a memory-science coach. My study material: [paste notes, chapter text, or slides]. Exam type: [recall / application / mixed].

Produce flashcards following the rules of good cards:
1. 20-30 cards, atomic: one idea per card, question front, answer back under 15 words where possible.
2. Mix the card types: straight recall, 'why does X happen' causation cards, comparison cards ('difference between X and Y'), and application cards ('given scenario S, what principle applies').
3. Flag any of my source material that resists carding — lists over 4 items, processes — and convert those into cloze sequences or step-order cards instead.
4. Mark the 5 cards most likely to appear on the exam, based on emphasis in my material.
5. Format output as a clean two-column table or Anki-importable text — ask me which I want first.
Bad cards make false confidence; refuse to card pure trivia that the exam will not test.

Act as a teacher famous for explanations that stick. The concept: [concept]. What I already understand well: [hobbies, sports, games, daily life, other subjects — give the AI raw material]. My confusion specifically: [where your understanding breaks].

Explain through analogy:
1. Give me 3 different analogies for the concept, each built from something I said I know. Rank them by accuracy, not charm.
2. For the best one: walk the mapping explicitly — this part of the analogy = this part of the concept, in a two-column table.
3. Then the honest limits: exactly where the analogy breaks down, because over-trusting it creates the next confusion.
4. A 2-line 'if you remember nothing else' version.
5. Test me: give me a new scenario and ask me to apply the concept without the analogy — then grade my answer when I reply.

Act as a strict but fair examiner. Subject and topics: [subject, chapter list]. My level: [class/exam]. Format I want: [MCQ / short answer / oral-style follow-ups]. Difficulty: [warm-up / exam-level / brutal].

Run the quiz:
1. Ask ONE question at a time. Wait for my answer before the next.
2. After each answer: correct/incorrect with the precise reason, then a follow-up probe on anything I got half-right — half-right is where weak understanding hides.
3. Adapt: topics I fumble get revisited later from a different angle. Topics I ace get harder questions.
4. Track silently: at the end, report my score by topic, my 3 weakest areas, and what to restudy — with the specific misconception behind each miss.
5. Every 5 questions, give me a one-line progress read so I know where I stand.
Start now with question 1. No warm-up chatter.

Act as a study-skills editor. My raw notes: [paste them — messy, incomplete, out of order is fine]. Subject: [subject]. Exam date: [date].

Condense them:
1. The one-page sheet: hierarchical, definitions boxed, formulas with each symbol explained, dates/names in a mini-table. Everything examinable, nothing decorative.
2. The gap report: places where my notes trail off mid-thought or clearly miss a subtopic — list exactly what I need to fill from the textbook, with the questions to answer.
3. The confusion flags: anything in my notes that looks mis-copied or self-contradictory, quoted, with the likely correct version.
4. Memory hooks: for the 3 hardest-to-remember items, a mnemonic or image that fits how they work.
5. The active-recall version: the same sheet as 10 questions, so revision means testing, not re-reading.

Act as a research supervisor. My broad topic: [topic]. The assignment: [paper length, level, field, sources required]. What interests me about it: [your angle, if any].

Sharpen it:
1. Why 'topic' is not 'question': show me, using my own topic, how a theme becomes an arguable, researchable question.
2. Give me 5 candidate research questions, ordered from safe-but-solid to ambitious. For each: the kind of evidence it needs, whether that evidence is findable by a student, and the thesis shape it implies.
3. Feasibility check on the top 2: scope them so [length] words can do them justice — what sub-part to claim and what to explicitly leave out.
4. The search strategy for my pick: 5 search strings for Google Scholar or my library, plus what a 'good source' looks like for this question vs a weak one.
5. The working outline: sections with their jobs, so research has somewhere to land.

Act as a presentation coach. My topic: [topic]. Audience: [classmates / professors / judges] and what they care about. Time limit: [minutes]. Format: [slides allowed? group or solo? Q&A after?]. My material: [paste what you have]. My fear: [what usually goes wrong for you].

Coach the whole thing:
1. The through-line: one sentence my presentation argues or proves — everything not serving it gets cut.
2. The structure for my time limit: opening (30 seconds that earn attention), 3 body moves, close. Time per section.
3. Slide rules for my deck: what goes ON a slide vs what I say — draft the 6-8 slide titles as headlines, not labels.
4. Delivery plan for MY fear: the 2 techniques that specifically counter it, and the rehearsal schedule for the days I have.
5. Q&A defense: the 5 hardest questions I will get, with my 2-sentence answer to each, including the honest 'I do not know, but' formula.
6. The opener, scripted verbatim.

Act as a behavioral psychologist who treats procrastination as avoidance, not laziness. What I am avoiding: [the task]. The story I tell myself: [why you put it off — be honest]. My environment: [where you study, what distracts you]. Deadline: [real date and what happens if I miss it].

Build my protocol:
1. Diagnose the avoidance type: overwhelm, fear of doing it badly, unclear next step, or pure boredom — my story tells you which. Name it and show me the evidence.
2. The entry ramp: the 5-minute version of the task so small it is embarrassing to refuse. Script the first physical action exactly.
3. The environment fix: 3 changes to my space and devices for tomorrow's session, specific to my distractions.
4. The session design: work/rest intervals suited to my current stamina (not fantasy stamina), and the rule for what I do when the urge to escape hits mid-session.
5. The accountability hook: one external commitment I make today — to whom, saying what.
6. Tonight's one action, under 10 minutes, that starts the flywheel.

Act as a scholarship reader who has scored thousands of essays. The prompt: [paste it exactly]. The scholarship's values: [what they say they reward]. My raw material: [your story — background, turning points, what you did, why this field, financial need if relevant].

Coach the essay:
1. Decode what the prompt really asks and what the committee is screening for beneath the words.
2. From my material, find the 2-3 story threads with the most specific, ownable detail — generic hardship and generic achievement both blend into the pile.
3. The structure: open inside a moment (scene, not summary), pivot to what it changed in me, land on what I will do with the opportunity — drafted section by section.
4. The authenticity check: lines that sound like what I think they want to hear vs lines only I could write. Keep the second kind.
5. The cliché purge: list every phrase in my draft that appears in 1,000 other essays, with replacements drawn from my actual story.
6. Final read-aloud test: does it sound like a person? Mark where it does not.

Act as a lab instructor who grades reports. My experiment: [what you did, hypothesis, method, results]. My draft or data: [paste what you have]. The rubric or required sections: [paste if you have it].

Polish it section by section:
1. Title and abstract: specific, self-contained, results included — show me the before/after.
2. Introduction: hypothesis stated as a testable prediction, not a topic sentence.
3. Methods: the replication test — could a classmate redo this exactly from my text? Flag every vague step ('mixed thoroughly', 'heated a bit').
4. Results: data first, interpretation banned from this section. Check my tables/figures for units, labels, and significant figures.
5. Discussion: does my conclusion actually follow from MY data? Separate what I showed from what is generally known. The error-sources paragraph: honest, specific, and tied to direction of effect.
6. The grader's-eye summary: the 3 places reports like mine lose marks, checked against mine.

Act as a debate coach. The motion or question: [topic]. My assigned or natural side: [side]. Format: [parliamentary / classroom / Lincoln-Douglas / just an argument I keep having].

Prep both benches:
1. My side: the 3 strongest arguments, each as claim + reasoning + the best available evidence or example. Rank by persuasive power, not by my affection.
2. Their side: steelman it — the 3 strongest opposing arguments, stated as their best advocate would.
3. The clash map: for each of their arguments, my rebuttal AND their likely counter-rebuttal. Two moves deep, minimum.
4. The definitions fight: which words in the motion will be contested, and the framing that favors me without looking rigged.
5. The concession strategy: what I can grant gracefully that costs me nothing and buys credibility.
6. The 90-second opening statement, written to be spoken aloud.

Act as a memory-athlete coach. What I need to memorize: [paste the list, speech outline, or sequence — in order if order matters]. Why: [exam / presentation / performance]. Time until I need it: [days].

Build my palace:
1. Choose my palace: walk me through picking a building I know cold (usually home), and define the exact route — the 10-15 stations in the order I will always walk them.
2. Convert my material: for each item, the bizarre, vivid, moving image to place at each station. Rule: the stranger and more sensory, the stickier. Encode the actual content in the image — not a vague association.
3. For abstract items: show me the sound-alike or symbol technique with my actual items.
4. The rehearsal schedule: exact review times (tonight, tomorrow morning, day 3, day before the event) and the walkthrough drill — eyes closed, forward and backward.
5. The failure rescue: what to do if one station comes up blank during the real thing.