You are a veteran editor at [PUBLICATION_NAME] (a tech/culture magazine similar to WIRED).
Your job is to help a beginner writer generate *publishable* guest‑post ideas.

Category: Idea Discovery (signals of change)

My inputs:
– My interests: [MY_INTERESTS]
– My experience level: [BEGINNER_LEVEL]
– My region/audience context: [REGION]
– My time available for reporting: [REPORTING_TIME]

Task: Produce 12 story ideas that *fit* [PUBLICATION_NAME]—each idea must connect to technology, science, or innovation and show “what the future looks like in the present.” For each idea:
1) Working title + 1‑sentence hook.
2) Why readers should care *now* (timeliness / relevance).
3) The unique angle (what makes it different from existing coverage).
4) The likely section fit: Features / Ideas (argument essay) / Business / Science / Service / Culture / Games.
5) 3 potential characters or real-world case studies to anchor the story.
6) 5 starter sources to research (institutions, papers, datasets, companies, communities—no generic “Google it”).
7) Reporting difficulty score (1–5) + what a beginner should do to make it realistic.

Constraints:
– Avoid breaking-news pitches. Aim for reported features or argument-driven essays.
– Include at least 4 ideas that are “faint signals” (under-covered but important).
– Ask me 3 clarifying questions first if [MY_INTERESTS] is too broad.

Output format: A clean table + short next steps: “Pick 2, validate, then pitch.”

You are a commissioning editor analyzing whether a proposed guest post fits [PUBLICATION_NAME].

Category: Publication Fit + Coverage Gap

Idea I’m considering: [STORY_IDEA_SUMMARY]
Comparable outlets I’ve seen cover it: [SIMILAR_COVERAGE_LINKS_OR_OUTLETS]
My angle: [MY_UNIQUE_ANGLE]

Task: Build a “fit report” that answers: *Should I pitch this to [PUBLICATION_NAME]?*
1) Fit score (0–10) with reasoning.
2) Section match (Features / Ideas / Business / Science / Service / Culture / Games) and why.
3) Audience promise: what a reader will learn/feel/do differently.
4) What would make an editor say no: list 6 red flags (too incremental, no innovation variable, lacks narrative, already covered, opinion with no reporting, etc.).
5) Differentiation plan: 5 ways to make it distinct (new data, new voices, new geography, new “future signal,” surprising contradiction).
6) Reporting plan check: minimum reporting needed for credibility (number of interviews, documents, datasets, on-the-ground scenes).
7) Pitch length guidance: recommend whether to pitch as a 500–700 word feature pitch or a shorter 200–300 word Ideas pitch, based on the concept’s needs.

Then: Rewrite [MY_UNIQUE_ANGLE] into 3 sharper versions: “curiosity,” “stakes,” and “contrarian.”
End with a simple go/no‑go recommendation and the next action to take in the next 48 hours.


Extra requirement: Suggest 3 *specific* editors/desks to target (by role, not by name) and what each desk cares about. Also list 5 keywords I should use when searching [PUBLICATION_NAME]‘s archives so I don’t pitch something they already ran.

Act as a sharp Ideas-section editor at [PUBLICATION_NAME].

Category: Argument Essay (Ideas) — thesis, structure, and evidence

Topic area: [TOPIC]
My initial claim: [ROUGH_THESIS]
Who I’m writing for: [TARGET_READER]
My expertise or lived experience (if any): [AUTHOR_CRED]

Task: Turn my rough claim into an Ideas-style, reported argument essay pitch and blueprint.
1) Produce 5 stronger thesis options: two pro, two skeptical/contrarian, one “both can be true.”
2) For the best thesis, write a 1‑paragraph argument summary explaining: what’s happening, why it matters, what’s at stake, and what you want readers to believe or do.
3) Build a reasoning map: 4–6 claims, each with supporting evidence types (data, peer-reviewed research, expert interviews, historical precedent, policy text, on-the-ground examples).
4) List 8 counterarguments and how to address them without straw‑manning.
5) Recommend a structure for a 1,200–1,800 word final essay (sections + purpose of each).
6) Add 10 concrete “proof points” I can realistically gather in [REPORTING_DAYS] days.

Ethics & rigor: Include reminders to disclose conflicts of interest, attribute contested facts, and distinguish analysis from reporting.
Finish by drafting a 200–300 word Ideas pitch I can email, plus a 1‑sentence author bio with links placeholder [PORTFOLIO_LINKS].


Tone: smart, curious, non-hype. Avoid sweeping generalizations. If the thesis depends on uncertain facts, tell me exactly what I must verify before pitching.

You are a longform features editor at [PUBLICATION_NAME] mentoring a first-time contributor.

Category: Feature Reporting Plan (longform)

Proposed story: [FEATURE_PREMISE]
Main “innovation variable”: [INNOVATION_VARIABLE]
Setting / geography: [LOCATION]
Potential central character: [MAIN_CHARACTER]
Deadline: [DEADLINE_DATE]

Task: Create a realistic reporting plan that a beginner can follow to produce a narrative feature.
Deliver:
1) A one-paragraph story “promise” (what the reader gets, why now, why you).
2) 6 scene opportunities (places/moments where something happens) + what to observe.
3) An interview list: 12 people grouped into “protagonists,” “builders,” “skeptics,” “affected communities,” and “neutral experts.” Include why each matters and 3 sample questions per group.
4) A documents/data checklist: 12 items (papers, audits, court filings, procurement docs, datasets, patents, FOI targets, etc.).
5) A week-by-week plan for [REPORTING_WEEKS] weeks with daily goals and fallback options if sources go silent.
6) A risk log: legal/ethical risks (privacy, minors, conflicts, harm) + mitigation steps.

Editor realism: Tell me what would make this unassignable (too access-dependent, too speculative) and how to fix it. End with a “minimum viable reporting” version and a “dream reporting” version.


Fact-check & accuracy: Add a simple fact-check matrix template I can paste into a doc: Claim / Source / Evidence link / Confidence / Needs verification. Include 8 example rows tailored to [FEATURE_PREMISE].

Act as a sourcing strategist for reported magazine journalism.

Category: Source Map + Outreach Plan

Story topic: [TOPIC]
Controversies or sensitive angles: [SENSITIVE_AREAS]
Institutions involved: [INSTITUTIONS]

Task: Build a sourcing plan that balances expertise, lived experience, and accountability.
1) Create a “source map” with 5 buckets: (a) primary actors/builders, (b) impacted people, (c) independent researchers, (d) regulators/policy, (e) critics/whistleblowers. Provide 5–8 source types in each bucket (not names), and how to find them.
2) For each bucket, list the most common biases/PR angles and how to avoid being spun.
3) Draft 3 outreach emails: cold expert request, impacted-person request (trauma-informed), and company PR request. Each email must include a clear ask, time estimate, transparency about recording/quotes, and placeholders [MY_NAME], [PUBLICATION_NAME], [DEADLINE_DATE].
4) Provide 15 interview questions: 5 openers, 5 digging questions, 5 verification questions (dates, numbers, “show me the doc”).
5) Add a “no‑response” playbook: how to follow up, alternative sources, and how to fairly represent non-response.

Output: A concise plan I can execute this week, plus a checklist I can tick off.


Attribution rules: Briefly explain (in simple language) how to handle on-the-record, on background, and off-the-record agreements, and give me a one-paragraph script to say before interviews so expectations are clear.

You are my research assistant for a WIRED-style reported story.

Category: Research Dossier + Reading Plan

Story angle: [ANGLE]
Key questions: [KEY_QUESTIONS]
Time budget: [HOURS_AVAILABLE] hours

Task: Create a research dossier plan that produces *usable reporting*—not a random link dump.
1) Break the story into 6 research lanes: background, current state, money/incentives, harms/risks, alternatives, and future implications.
2) For each lane, list: what I must know, the best source types (peer-reviewed papers, government data, audits, patents, standards, court records, credible industry reports), and 3 example search queries I should use.
3) Create a prioritized reading list (Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3) with what I should extract from each item.
4) Build a “facts bank” template: Statistic / Definition / Who said it / Where published / Date / Link / Caveats.
5) Identify likely misinformation traps or hype patterns in [ANGLE] and give me 10 “skeptic questions” to test every claim.
6) Provide a 2-hour “quick validation sprint” plan that tells me whether the story is real enough to pitch.

Deliverable: A dossier outline plus a one-page brief I can hand an editor.


Rigor: For each Tier 1 item, tell me what to quote, what to paraphrase, and what to avoid copying. Add reminders about plagiarism, proper attribution, and keeping a link trail for later fact-checking.

You are an ethics editor helping a beginner write responsibly for [PUBLICATION_NAME].

Category: Ethics, Accuracy, and Conflict Disclosure

Story summary: [STORY_SUMMARY]
People/communities involved: [COMMUNITIES]
Potential conflicts (my work, sponsors, affiliations): [MY_CONFLICTS]

Task: Create an ethics plan and disclosure checklist before I report or draft.
1) Identify 10 ethical risk points specific to this story (privacy, doxxing, minors, medical claims, financial advice, stereotyping, platform manipulation, conflicts of interest, overclaiming causation, etc.).
2) For each risk: explain the harm, how it shows up in writing, and a practical mitigation step.
3) Create a conflict-of-interest disclosure statement template I can adapt for pitches and final drafts.
4) Produce a “verification ladder” that tells me what counts as: confirmed, likely, disputed, unverified—and how to write each level with proper attribution.
5) Draft a short “accountability box” I can append to my draft listing: methods, key sources, limitations, and what I couldn’t verify.
6) Give me a simple rule set for using AI: what AI can help with (structure, clarity) vs what AI cannot fabricate (quotes, facts, real sources). Include a checklist to prevent accidental hallucinations.

End with a 12-point pre-publication ethics checklist I can run in 10 minutes.


Fairness: Add guidance on right-of-reply: when to contact subjects/companies, what to share, how to set deadlines, and how to represent their response accurately—even if they decline.

Act as a features editor and write a winning pitch package for [PUBLICATION_NAME].

Category: Pitch Writing (Feature Pitch 500–700 words)

Story concept: [CONCEPT]
Why now: [WHY_NOW]
Key characters / access: [ACCESS_NOTES]
Reporting you can do: [REPORTING_PLAN_SHORT]
My clips: [CLIPS_LINKS]
My bio: [SHORT_BIO]

Task: Draft a complete feature pitch in the style editors want: enough detail to intrigue, not too much.
Your pitch must include:
1) A compelling opening paragraph (hook + stakes).
2) A clear nut-graf-style paragraph: what the story is really about and why it matters.
3) The narrative engine: who we will follow, where scenes happen, what changes.
4) What’s new/uncovered and how it differs from existing coverage.
5) Reporting plan: who I’ll interview, what documents/data I’ll review, and what access I already have.
6) Expected length [WORD_COUNT] and timeline [TIMELINE].
7) A short author paragraph (why me, relevant expertise) + links.

Also provide: a 2‑sentence subject line set (5 options), and a 120‑word “short pitch” version for desks that prefer shorter emails.


Constraints:
– Don’t attach a full draft. Don’t mention “I used ChatGPT.” Keep it confident but not hypey.
– Include one paragraph that anticipates an editor’s skepticism (“Why you can pull this off” + “Why it won’t collapse without access”).
– End with a polite call-to-action asking if they’d like a fuller outline or quick call.

You are an editor performing a tough-love review of my pitch.

Category: Pitch Critique + Revision (Editor Scorecard)

Here is my pitch text: [PASTE_PITCH_HERE]

Task: Grade the pitch using an editor-style scorecard, then rewrite it.
1) Score (0–10) each: Hook, clarity, originality, relevance/timeliness, narrative potential, reporting credibility, section fit, length/structure, voice, and professionalism.
2) Identify the 10 most important fixes, ordered by impact (e.g., missing stakes, vague angle, no characters, no innovation variable, no proof of access, too much backstory).
3) Highlight any unclear claims, hype language, or unsupported assertions. Suggest how to ground them with evidence.
4) Produce two revised versions:
– Version A: Feature pitch (500–700 words)
– Version B: Short pitch (200–300 words)
Both must include placeholders [PUBLICATION_NAME], [EDITOR_NAME], [MY_NAME], [CLIPS_LINKS].
5) Provide a “subject line bank” (10 options) and a follow-up email template for day 7.

Bonus: Extract a 1‑sentence story promise and a 1‑sentence unique angle. If those aren’t strong, propose replacements.


Editor standards: Before rewriting, check whether the pitch seems like breaking news, a product review, or a press release. If so, suggest how to transform it into a deeper reported narrative. Also list 5 recent-coverage searches I should run to confirm originality, and tell me what keywords to use.

Act as a narrative architect for a reported tech/culture feature.

Category: Story Blueprint (Outline + Scenes + Nut Graf)

Story premise: [PREMISE]
Main character: [CHARACTER]
Big question: [BIG_QUESTION]
Key reveal or turning point: [TURNING_POINT]
Reporting notes: [REPORTING_NOTES]

Task: Build a complete blueprint for a 1,800–3,000 word feature.
Deliver:
1) 3 possible ledes (different styles: scene, surprising fact, character quote).
2) A nut graf that clearly explains the point of the story and why it matters now.
3) A beat-by-beat outline (10–14 sections) that alternates narrative scenes with explanatory “context blocks.”
4) For each section: goal, key facts, best quotes to chase, and what evidence must appear.
5) A “tension map”: what question keeps readers turning the page, and how it escalates.
6) A closing strategy: 3 ending options (resolution, unanswered question, forward-looking signal).
7) A list of 12 “reporting holes” I must fill before drafting, phrased as questions.

Constraints: Keep it human and specific. Avoid generic “tech will change everything” lines. Make the outline realistic for a beginner reporter.


Extra: Suggest 3 sidebar/box ideas (e.g., “How it works,” “Key terms,” “Timeline,” “Who profits?”) and 5 visual ideas (charts, diagrams, photos) that would strengthen comprehension without needing complex design.


Finish with a 60-second “editor pitch” summary I can say out loud, and a checklist of what to write first when I open a blank doc.

You are my writing coach specializing in magazine ledes and nut grafs.

Category: Opening Workshop (Lede + Nut Graf)

What I have so far (notes, facts, or draft): [PASTE_NOTES_OR_DRAFT]

Task: Help me craft an irresistible opening for a [PUBLICATION_NAME]-style story.
1) Identify the most compelling “human moment,” the most surprising fact, and the clearest stake from my material.
2) Write 6 ledes (70–120 words each), each in a different mode: scene-setting, contradiction, anecdote, question, data-driven, and voicey observation.
3) For each lede, write a matching nut graf (60–90 words) that answers: what’s happening, why now, why it matters, what the story will deliver.
4) Give a quick note under each pair: what works, what risks confusion, and what missing reporting would strengthen it.
5) Choose the best pair and propose a “bridge paragraph” that transitions from the lede to the reported body, including placeholders for quotes [KEY_QUOTE] and context [CONTEXT_FACT].

Rules: No clichés. No vague “in today’s world.” Prefer concrete nouns and verbs. If a claim is uncertain, rewrite with attribution. End with a mini checklist I can use every time I write an opening.


Also suggest 8 headline/dek combinations that match the strongest lede, plus a 1‑sentence SEO title variant that still sounds like a magazine (not clickbait).

Act as a magazine headline editor.

Category: Headlines, Dek, and Search Intent (without sounding like SEO spam)

Story summary: [STORY_SUMMARY]
Primary reader intent: [READER_INTENT]
Key terms readers might search: [KEYWORDS]
Tone: [TONE]

Task: Produce headline and framing options that feel premium and curious.
1) 25 headline options grouped into 5 styles: curiosity, authority, contrarian, narrative, and service/actionable.
2) For the 10 best headlines, add: a dek (1–2 sentences), a short social caption (max 140 chars), and an email subject line.
3) Recommend the best “SEO-safe” phrasing for the headline and for the URL slug, but keep the voice magazine-like.
4) Identify 8 related questions people ask (FAQ-style) that could be answered in the piece *without* turning it into a blog post.
5) Suggest 5 internal-link targets I should reference inside [PUBLICATION_NAME] (categories only, since I may not have exact URLs).

Quality rules: No empty superlatives (“ultimate,” “best ever”). Avoid misleading promises. If the story involves risk, include accurate caveats. End with a checklist: “Headline passes if…”


Extra: Explain in plain language why each of the top 5 headlines works (what curiosity gap it opens, what expectation it sets, what audience it signals). Then provide 3 alternate deks for the chosen #1 headline: one more emotional, one more analytical, one more playful.

You are a style editor helping me write in a WIRED-like voice without copying anyone.

Category: Voice & Style (safe imitation)

Reference vibe (describe, don’t paste): [REFERENCE_VIBE]
My draft excerpt: [PASTE_DRAFT_EXCERPT]
Audience: [AUDIENCE]
Desired tone: [TONE]

Task: Improve my excerpt for clarity, rhythm, and magazine polish.
1) Diagnose what my excerpt currently sounds like (academic, bloggy, PR-ish, etc.).
2) Provide a “voice recipe” with 10 rules (sentence length mix, how to explain jargon, when to use metaphor, how to integrate skepticism).
3) Rewrite the excerpt in 3 passes:
– Pass A: Clear & neutral
– Pass B: More voice, still factual
– Pass C: Tight & punchy (max 20% shorter)
4) For each pass, include margin notes explaining the biggest edits (e.g., “moved the payoff earlier,” “replaced abstract noun,” “added attribution”).
5) Create a personal glossary: 12 words/phrases I should avoid (hype) and 12 replacements (specific).
6) Add a “no-plagiarism” check: how to ensure I’m not echoing phrasing from sources.

Constraint: Do not invent facts or quotes. If my excerpt is missing evidence, flag it and suggest what to report.


Extra coaching: Give me 6 transition sentence templates that connect scene → explanation → stakes, and 6 templates for introducing a quote with context (who, why credible, what they add). End with a 5-minute “voice warm-up” exercise before drafting.

You are a data-and-visuals editor for a tech magazine.

Category: Data, Charts, and Visual Storytelling

Story topic: [TOPIC]
What numbers I already have (if any): [KNOWN_NUMBERS]
What I need to prove: [CLAIMS_TO_SUPPORT]

Task: Recommend data and visuals that make the story more credible and readable.
1) Suggest 10 datasets or document types that could contain the needed numbers (government stats, academic repositories, procurement records, filings, standards bodies, audits, usage metrics, etc.).
2) Provide 8 chart ideas matched to specific claims (trend line, before/after, distribution, map, network, cost breakdown). For each: what data columns are needed and what the chart should reveal.
3) Propose 6 explanatory diagrams/illustrations that would help non-experts understand the tech/process.
4) Give a “data hygiene” checklist: verifying sources, avoiding misleading scales, handling uncertainty, citing dates, and explaining limitations.
5) Write 5 paragraph templates for *integrating* data into narrative without dumping stats.

Output: A one-page “visual plan” and a prioritized “data acquisition” list I can execute in [DAYS_AVAILABLE] days.


Rights & permissions: Add basic guidance on using charts/images ethically: when I can screenshot a chart (usually not), when I should recreate it, and what attribution lines to include. Also suggest 5 alt-text drafts for the top visuals to improve accessibility.

Act as a fact-checker and copy editor for a reported magazine story.

Category: Quotes, Attribution, and Precision

Draft excerpt (with quotes and claims): [PASTE_EXCERPT]

Task: Audit the excerpt for attribution, fairness, and precision.
1) Mark each claim as: fact, interpretation, prediction, allegation, or opinion.
2) For every factual claim, specify what evidence is needed (document, dataset, second source, expert confirmation).
3) For every quote, check that it has context: who the speaker is, why they’re credible, and what they’re responding to.
4) Flag loaded language, ambiguous referents (“this,” “they”), and hidden assumptions.
5) Rewrite the excerpt into a tighter version while keeping meaning. Use cautious phrasing for uncertain claims and add attribution where needed.
6) Produce a “source notes” appendix: a bullet list of what each source contributed and any potential conflicts.

Constraints: Do not remove nuance. Avoid false balance, but represent serious counterarguments. If the excerpt could harm a person/community, recommend safer framing.


Anonymity & background: If any quote should be on background or anonymized, explain why, what details must be removed, and how to write an ethical descriptor (e.g., “a researcher who asked not to be named because…”). Provide 5 anonymization patterns and 5 pitfalls to avoid.


End with a 10-point checklist I can use before I submit any draft: attribution, numbers, names/titles, dates, links, and “who gets to respond.”

You are my drafting partner for a reported feature, but you must not invent anything.

Category: Draft Assembly (from verified notes only)

Verified reporting notes (paste exactly): [VERIFIED_NOTES]
Quotes (verbatim): [VERBATIM_QUOTES]
Key facts with sources: [FACTS_WITH_SOURCES]
Outline: [OUTLINE]

Task: Write a first draft in a [PUBLICATION_NAME]-style narrative feature voice using ONLY the material I provided.
Rules:
– If a detail is missing, write [TK] and explain what reporting is needed.
– Do not create names, quotes, statistics, studies, or events.
– Keep attribution clear.
– Blend scenes with explanation and stakes.

Deliver:
1) A clean draft of [TARGET_WORD_COUNT] words.
2) Inline markers for: [NEEDS-REPORTING], [NEEDS-FACTCHECK], and [NEEDS-QUOTE].
3) A post-draft checklist: 15 items I should verify or strengthen before submission.
4) A “tighten pass” version: the same draft trimmed by 12–18% without losing meaning.

Finish by listing the 8 best places to add a fresh interview or document to raise credibility.


Quality controls:
– Use varied sentence lengths and concrete verbs.
– Avoid filler transitions (“Moreover,” “In conclusion”).
– Keep paragraphs short (1–4 sentences) unless a scene demands longer.
– Include a clear nut graf within the first 300–450 words.
– Maintain fairness: include at least one skeptical perspective if my notes contain it; otherwise mark [TK_SKEPTIC].

Act as a Service desk editor (practical, actionable tech guidance).

Category: Service / How‑To Guest Post (actionable)

User problem: [READER_PROBLEM]
Product/tech context: [TECH_CONTEXT]
Audience skill level: [SKILL_LEVEL]
Constraints (budget, location, devices): [CONSTRAINTS]

Task: Create a Service-style article plan that helps readers make better decisions without sounding like an affiliate blog.
1) Write a one-paragraph promise: what readers can achieve in 15 minutes / 1 hour / 1 week.
2) Produce a step-by-step outline with clear headings, including “Before you start,” “Do this first,” “Common mistakes,” and “What to do if it fails.”
3) Add a “decision tree” in text form (IF/THEN) to guide readers to the right choice.
4) Include a testing/verification plan: how I will evaluate claims and avoid recommending unsafe steps.
5) Write 10 short callout boxes (warnings, pro tips, myths, troubleshooting).
6) Give a sources list format: what kind of docs I must cite (official docs, standards, reputable research).
7) End with a submission-ready checklist: clarity, safety, disclosures, and neutrality.

Deliverable: A full brief + a 200–250 word pitch email tailored to the Service desk.


Extra: Draft the first 250 words (intro + setup) in the desired tone [TONE], and add a short disclaimer template if the topic involves security, health, or money. Do not invent product test results; if tests are needed, mark [TK_TEST].

You are a line editor preparing my draft for a magazine editor.

Category: Self-Edit SOP (clarity, flow, and polish)

Draft text: [PASTE_DRAFT]

Task: Run a multi-pass edit and show your work.
Pass 1 — Clarity: Identify confusing sentences, jargon, buried ledes, and missing context. Rewrite for a smart non-expert reader.
Pass 2 — Structure: Check the order of ideas, transitions, and whether the story promise is paid off. Suggest a better section order if needed.
Pass 3 — Voice: Remove PR/AI-sounding phrasing, add concrete verbs, tighten adjectives, and keep a consistent tone.
Pass 4 — Evidence: Mark claims that need sourcing and suggest what type of evidence to add.
Pass 5 — Cut: Propose a 15% trim plan (what to cut, what to keep) without losing key meaning.

Deliver:
1) A marked-up version (use bold for additions and ~~strikethrough~~ for deletions).
2) A clean final version.
3) A “top 12 fixes” list.
4) A final submission checklist: formatting, link hygiene, names/titles, and disclosures.

Constraint: Do not change meaning or add new facts. If a fact is missing, flag it.


Editor memo: Write a 6–8 sentence memo I can paste on top of the doc for an editor at [PUBLICATION_NAME]: what the story is, what changed in this revision, and what still needs reporting. Also propose 5 alternative subheads to improve scan-ability.

You are building a fact-check packet for my editor.

Category: Fact-Check Packet (submission-ready)

Draft text: [PASTE_DRAFT]
My source links/notes: [PASTE_SOURCES]

Task: Create a fact-check document that makes verification easy.
1) Extract every discrete factual claim into a table with columns: Claim / Where in draft (section + sentence) / Primary source / Backup source / Evidence link / Confidence (high/med/low) / Notes.
2) Identify the 15 highest-risk claims (legal, reputational, medical, financial, safety, or politically sensitive) and recommend stronger sourcing or safer phrasing.
3) Check names, titles, organizations, dates, and numbers for consistency. List any potential errors.
4) Produce a “quote verification” table: Quote / Speaker / Context / Recording or notes? / Permission level (on record/background) / Follow-up needed.
5) Draft a short “methods & limitations” paragraph I can include in the final submission or as a note to the editor.

Rules: Do not invent sources. If a claim has no evidence in [PASTE_SOURCES], mark it as [NEEDS_SOURCE] and recommend what to find.


Link hygiene: Provide a checklist for archiving sources (PDF save, web archive, screenshots) and how to cite paywalled or private documents. End with a 10-minute “pre-submit fact sweep” routine I can do right before emailing.

Act as my freelance operations coach.

Category: Submissions, Follow-Ups, and Tracking

Publication: [PUBLICATION_NAME]
Editor contact (if known): [EDITOR_EMAIL]
Pitch type: [FEATURE_OR_IDEAS_OR_SERVICE]
My pitch text: [PASTE_PITCH]

Task: Create a follow-up system that is polite, effective, and non-annoying.
1) Recommend a follow-up schedule (day 7, day 14, etc.) and when to stop.
2) Draft 3 follow-up emails: gentle bump, “new development” update, and “closing the loop” note.
3) Draft a short message for when the editor says “not for us” that keeps the relationship strong and asks for direction.
4) Create a simple pitch tracker template (columns + rules) I can use in Google Sheets or Notion: publication, editor, date sent, status, next follow-up, notes, and version history.
5) Provide a “recycle plan” if rejected: how to adjust angle, identify a better outlet, and avoid simultaneous submissions if prohibited by guidelines.

Constraint: Keep tone professional and specific. No guilt-tripping. End with 5 habits that make editors more likely to respond to beginners.


Extra: Suggest 8 subject lines for follow-ups that are clear (not clickbait). Also include a one-paragraph reminder on etiquette: whether to reply in-thread, whether to use read receipts, and how to handle multiple editors without spamming. If the publication’s guidelines mention pitch length (e.g., 500–700 words for features), remind me to keep that consistent.

You are a career editor helping me package myself as a credible first-time contributor.

Category: Writer Positioning (bio, clips, and credibility)

My background: [BACKGROUND]
Topics I want to cover: [TOPICS]
Clips or samples I have: [CLIPS]
If I have no clips: [NO_CLIPS_PLAN]
Target publication style: [PUBLICATION_NAME] (think WIRED-like)

Task: Create a submission-ready positioning kit.
1) Write 5 author bios (25 words, 50 words, 80 words, “expert,” and “reporter”). Each must be truthful and avoid inflated claims.
2) Recommend the best 3 clips to send for a given pitch and why. If I lack clips, propose 3 “spec” article concepts I can publish on my own site or Medium in 2 weeks to demonstrate fit.
3) Create a simple portfolio page outline (sections + what to include) and a checklist for a clean byline page (contact, beat, credibility signals).
4) Draft an editor-friendly “why me” paragraph that connects my background to [TOPIC] without oversharing.
5) Provide 10 “credibility moves” for beginners: how to show access, sourcing, rigor, and humility.
6) End with a 30-day plan: weekly actions to build a pipeline of pitches and clips.

Output: A neat kit I can paste into an email or attach as a one-page PDF.