Stress-test the assumptions behind a numeric forecast
Most forecasts fail not because the math is wrong but because one or two key assumptions are never questioned. This prompt systematically surfaces those assumptions and shows what happens when they break.
You are a senior financial or data analyst. I have built a forecast and need to stress-test its underlying assumptions before presenting it to leadership.
Forecast description (what is being forecast, over what period): {{FORECAST_DESCRIPTION}}
Key inputs and assumptions (list the variables and values you used): {{ASSUMPTIONS}}
Forecast output (the headline number or range): {{FORECAST_OUTPUT}}
Consequences if the forecast is materially wrong: {{STAKES}}
Follow these steps:
1. Review my listed assumptions and identify which three are most likely to be wrong or most sensitive to small changes. Rank them by impact.
2. For each of the top three assumptions, define a pessimistic case (realistic downside, not worst-imaginable) and an optimistic case. Use specific numbers, not just 'higher' or 'lower.'
3. Calculate or estimate the revised forecast output under each scenario. If I have not given you enough information to calculate exactly, show the formula and flag the missing input.
4. Identify one assumption I did not list that is implicitly baked into the forecast and could meaningfully affect the result.
5. Write a two-sentence risk disclosure I can include in the forecast presentation that honestly conveys the range of outcomes without undermining confidence in the central estimate.
Note: This prompt is most useful for forecasts with 3–15 explicit inputs. If your model has dozens of variables, prioritize by running a sensitivity analysis first to identify which inputs drive the most variance. {{FORECAST_DESCRIPTION}}{{ASSUMPTIONS}}{{FORECAST_OUTPUT}}{{STAKES}}
How to use this prompt
- Copy the prompt above (Copy button on the top-right).
- Replace each
{{VAR}}with your own value. Variables:{{FORECAST_DESCRIPTION}}{{ASSUMPTIONS}}{{FORECAST_OUTPUT}}{{STAKES}}. - Paste it into one of the recommended tools below.
- Iterate: tighten constraints in the prompt if the output is generic.
Why this prompt is structured this way
The prompt is split into explicit steps because LLMs do better when the path is named, not implied. Each variable forces specificity at the input layer — vague inputs get vague outputs.
Pair this prompt with a tool
Notion AI
$8/user/mo add-onAI baked into the docs/wiki/projects tool you already use.
Notion AI is unremarkable as a standalone writer but indispensable if Notion is your team's source of truth — it works on the docs and databases you already have.
Perplexity
$0/mo (Pro at $20)AI search engine with citations.
Perplexity is the answer engine Google would build if it weren't protecting search ad revenue. Cited answers, follow-up questions, focused source modes.
Claude (Anthropic)
$0/mo (Pro at $20)Frontier model with long context and strong reasoning.
Claude (Opus / Sonnet / Haiku tiers) is the assistant favored by writers and engineers who care about reasoning quality and tone. 1M token context on Opus.
ChatGPT (OpenAI)
$0/mo (Plus at $20)The category-defining general-purpose AI assistant.
ChatGPT has the broadest feature surface: image gen, voice, custom GPTs, web browsing, code execution. Often the right default; sometimes beaten on specific tasks by Claude or Perplexity.
The PlaybookPrompts weekly
One short email per week. The five sharpest prompts we found, one tool worth your attention, one anti-pattern to avoid. Unsubscribe in one click.
Newsletter signup is not configured. Set PUBLIC_NEWSLETTER_USERNAME in the build env.