Stress-test a mental model you use to make decisions
Mental models only fail you in situations you haven't thought through yet. This prompt systematically finds the edges of a model you rely on and tells you when to stop using it.
I regularly use the mental model of {{MENTAL_MODEL}} to make decisions in my work as a {{JOB_ROLE}}. Here is how I currently understand and apply it:
{{MY_CURRENT_UNDERSTANDING}}
1. Evaluate my current understanding. Identify:
a. What I've described correctly.
b. Any subtle errors, oversimplifications, or missing nuance in my description.
c. Any vocabulary I've used imprecisely.
2. Describe the original context in which {{MENTAL_MODEL}} was developed or is most valid. What assumptions does it rely on being true?
3. Generate 4 specific scenarios from the world of {{JOB_ROLE}} where applying {{MENTAL_MODEL}} would lead to a poor decision. For each scenario:
- Describe the situation briefly.
- Explain why the model breaks down here.
- Name a different mental model or approach that would serve better in that situation.
4. Generate 3 scenarios where {{MENTAL_MODEL}} is exactly the right tool and outperforms intuition or other common approaches.
5. Write a one-sentence 'warning label' for {{MENTAL_MODEL}} — a crisp reminder of when not to use it — that I could keep in my notes.
If {{MENTAL_MODEL}} is ambiguous or goes by different names in different fields, ask me to clarify before proceeding rather than guessing which version I mean. {{MENTAL_MODEL}}{{JOB_ROLE}}{{MY_CURRENT_UNDERSTANDING}}
How to use this prompt
- Copy the prompt above (Copy button on the top-right).
- Replace each
{{VAR}}with your own value. Variables:{{MENTAL_MODEL}}{{JOB_ROLE}}{{MY_CURRENT_UNDERSTANDING}}. - 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.