Structure, precision, and the sections graders actually read.
prompt.txt
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.
#science#writing
💡 Replace the [brackets] with your details — the more specific, the sharper the answer.
Learn anything by explaining it — with a tutor who pokes the holes.
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.
A realistic revision battle plan for the days you actually have left.
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.
From vague topic to a defensible argument with a roadmap.
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.