From basic techniques to advanced frameworks â learn how to communicate with Claude in a way that consistently gets outstanding results.
Why prompting matters: Two people can use the same Claude model and get wildly different results â purely based on how they phrase their request. A well-crafted prompt is the single biggest lever you have for improving output quality.
A simple framework for structuring any prompt. Include as many elements as relevant.
Master these techniques and you'll be in the top 5% of Claude users.
Assigning Claude a role or persona dramatically shifts the vocabulary, depth, and perspective of its responses. It's one of the easiest and most powerful techniques.
"Explain compound interest."
"Act as a financial advisor explaining compound interest to a 16-year-old who just opened their first savings account. Use relatable examples and avoid jargon."
The more specific the role, the better. "Act as a senior Google engineer with 10 years of Python experience" beats "act as a programmer."
Asking Claude to reason step-by-step before giving an answer dramatically improves accuracy on logic, maths, and complex decisions. It forces Claude to "show its work."
"Is it better to lease or buy a car for a small business?"
"Is it better to lease or buy a car for a small business? Think through this step by step, considering tax implications, cash flow, depreciation, and flexibility. Show your reasoning before your final recommendation."
Showing Claude one or more examples of the output you want before asking it to produce more. This is the single most effective technique for matching a specific style or format.
Using XML tags in your prompts helps Claude understand which part of your input is what. This is especially useful for complex prompts with multiple components (instructions, examples, data to analyse).
Anthropic specifically recommends using XML tags for complex prompts â Claude is trained to recognise and respect this structure.
Don't settle for the first output. The best Claude results usually come from 2-3 rounds of refinement. Be specific about what to change.
"Make it better." / "Improve this." / "This isn't quite right."
"Good start. Now: (1) Cut the second paragraph â it repeats point 1, (2) Make the opening sentence a question instead of a statement, (3) Add a concrete example to paragraph 3."
Tell Claude what NOT to do. This is just as important as telling it what to do, and it's often what separates good from great outputs.
After getting an answer, ask Claude to critique its own response. This surfaces errors, gaps, and weak reasoning that Claude might not surface unprompted.
Always specify the format you want. Claude will match virtually any structure you describe â tables, JSON, markdown, numbered lists, prose, and more.
Combine a role for Claude with a specific description of who it's writing for. This double-layered instruction produces the most precisely tailored outputs.
Copy, paste, and adapt. Fill in the brackets with your specifics.
Write a [length]-word article about [topic] for [audience]. Tone: [tone]. Include: an attention-grabbing opening, [N] main sections with subheadings, real examples, and a clear takeaway. SEO keyword to include naturally: [keyword].
Write a cold outreach email to [prospect type] about [offering]. Value prop: [one line]. Proof: [stat or result]. Under 80 words. End with a specific, low-commitment CTA. No "I hope this email finds you well."
Find and fix the bug in this [language] code. Error: [error message]. Expected: [what should happen]. Explain the root cause, show the fix, and highlight what changed. Code: [paste code]
Analyse this data and tell me: (1) the 3 most important insights, (2) any anomalies or surprises, (3) what action I should take based on this. Context: [what the data represents]. Data: [paste data]
Rewrite this text to be [shorter/clearer/more persuasive/more formal/more casual]. Keep the core message intact. Target length: [N words]. Audience: [who will read it]. Original: [paste text]
Brainstorm [N] ideas for [topic/challenge]. I work in [industry/context]. Avoid obvious ideas. For each idea, give a one-sentence explanation of why it could work. Mark your top 3 with a star.
Summarise this meeting transcript into: (1) 3-5 key decisions made, (2) action items with owners and deadlines, (3) open questions that need follow-up. Format as bullet points. Transcript: [paste]
Translate this text from [language] to [language]. Don't just translate â localise it for [country/culture]. Adapt idioms, examples, and cultural references so they feel natural to a native speaker. Text: [paste]
I'm planning to [decision/action]. Play devil's advocate and give me the strongest possible case AGAINST this decision. Don't hold back. Then give me 3 ways I could mitigate those risks.
Explain [complex topic] to someone who is [background/level]. Use one simple analogy. Avoid all jargon. If you must use a technical term, define it immediately. Keep it under [N] words.
Write a job description for a [role] at [company type]. Culture: [3 words]. Key responsibilities: [list 4-5]. Must-have skills: [list]. Nice-to-have: [list]. Tone: [e.g. welcoming, direct, startup-casual]. Include a compelling intro paragraph.
Summarise this [article/paper/report] in 3 parts: (1) Main argument in 2 sentences, (2) Key evidence or findings as 5 bullet points, (3) Limitations or caveats I should know. Document: [paste]