Operationalizing
Your Expertise With AI

I'm going to give you a piece of work I created and was happy with. I want you to reverse-engineer it into a reusable skill so I can produce this same quality of output again with different client information, without re-explaining myself every time.

Analyze what I give you and identify: the purpose this output serves and who reads it, what inputs are required to produce it, the structure and section order, the voice and tone rules that make it sound like me, the standards that separate a good version from a weak one, what should never appear in it, and the format and length.

Then write it as a skill: a short description of when to use it, the inputs it needs, step-by-step instructions for producing the output, the quality standards it must meet, and one example of what good looks like.

Ask me questions about anything you had to guess at before you finalize it.

Here is the work:
[PASTE YOUR WORK HERE]

Here is a skill I've been using, and here's a recent output from it that wasn't quite right.

Tell me which specific instruction in the skill allowed that output, then rewrite only that part. Don't rebuild the whole skill. Show me the before and after of what you changed and explain why it fixes the problem.

THE SKILL:
[PASTE SKILL]

THE OUTPUT THAT MISSED:
[PASTE OUTPUT]

WHAT WAS WRONG WITH IT:
[ONE OR TWO SENTENCES]

Here is a transcript from a client session. Extract and organize the following, using only what's actually in the transcript — do not infer or fill gaps:

Decisions made, and who made them.
Insights or realizations the client reached.
Recommendations I gave.
Commitments — who agreed to do what, by when, including mine.
Open questions left unresolved.
Anything flagged as sensitive or confidential.

Note anything ambiguous rather than guessing at it.

TRANSCRIPT:
[PASTE]

Using the extraction above, write a session recap addressed directly to the client.

Open with what we covered in one or two sentences. Move to what they worked through and arrived at, in their language where possible. State their commitments and mine clearly, with dates. Close with what happens before we meet next.

Write to them, not about them. No corporate filler, no motivational language, no summary headers. Reflect their own words back where they said something that mattered. Keep it under 400 words.

Now write a version for the sponsor who is paying for this engagement, not the participant.

Report themes, patterns, and progress against the engagement's stated goals. Include nothing the participant shared in confidence — no personal disclosures, no specific admissions, nothing that identifies a struggle as belonging to that individual.

If the sponsor should be aware of something I need to raise with them directly rather than in writing, flag it to me separately at the end.

Keep it under 250 words.

Write the follow-up email that sends with this recap. Warm, brief, professional.

Confirm the next session date, name the one thing they're focused on before then, and nothing else. Under 100 words.

Build me a web-based assessment called the Performance Management Health Check. It should look professional and work well on mobile.

STRUCTURE
A welcome screen explaining the assessment takes about four minutes and evaluates how well their organization's performance management system is actually working. Then 12 questions, one per screen with a progress indicator. Then a lead capture screen collecting first name, last name, work email, company name, and job title. Then a results screen.

QUESTIONS — each answered on a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is Strongly Disagree and 5 is Strongly Agree.

Category 1 — Clarity of Expectations
1. Every employee can describe what success in their role looks like without checking a document.
2. Performance expectations are set in writing before the period being evaluated, not during it.
3. Managers across our organization define "good performance" in roughly the same way.
4. When someone's role changes, their performance expectations are formally updated.

Category 2 — Feedback and Coaching Cadence
5. Employees receive performance feedback on a predictable schedule, not only when something goes wrong.
6. Managers are trained and confident in delivering difficult feedback.
7. Feedback conversations are documented consistently across managers.
8. Employees would say they know where they stand right now.

Category 3 — Accountability and Documentation
9. Performance concerns are documented at the time they occur, not reconstructed later.
10. Two employees with similar performance issues would be handled consistently by different managers.
11. Our documentation would hold up if a termination decision were challenged.
12. Performance decisions — promotions, raises, discipline — can be traced back to documented evidence.

SCORING
Each category scores out of 20. Total out of 60. Show all three category scores and the total on the results screen.

CATEGORY BANDS
4-9 Fragile — this area is running on individual managers' instincts rather than a system. Risk is high and inconsistency is likely already visible.
10-15 Developing — the foundation exists but isn't applied consistently. Results depend on who the manager is.
16-20 Established — this area functions as a system. Focus shifts from building to maintaining.

OVERALL BANDS
12-27 Significant exposure.
28-43 Functional but inconsistent.
44-60 Strong foundation.

RESULTS SCREEN
Show the total, the three category scores visually, the interpretation for each category, and name the lowest-scoring category as the priority area. End with a button to book a consultation.

CRM CONNECTION
On submission, POST the results as JSON to a webhook URL I will provide. Include first name, last name, email, company, job title, the three category scores, the total score, and the overall band name.

DESIGN
Clean and professional. Deep teal and white, generous spacing, large readable type.

I've built an assessment with a category called [CATEGORY NAME] measuring [WHAT IT MEASURES]. I need interpretation language for three score bands: low, middle, and high.

For each band, write two to three sentences that name what's actually happening operationally at that level, name the specific risk or cost it creates, and point toward what changes it — without prescribing the solution, because that's the conversation I want to have with them.

Write to the reader directly. No jargon, no motivational language, no softening. These are senior leaders who will respect being told the truth.

Here are the four statements in this category:
[PASTE THE FOUR STATEMENTS]

I run invitation-only executive roundtables for senior leaders. The next one is on [TOPIC].

Define the ideal participant: title and seniority, company size and type, what they're currently dealing with that makes this topic urgent, what they'd want from a room like this, and what would make them decline.

Then give me five screening signals I can look for on LinkedIn that suggest someone is a fit, and three that suggest they aren't.

Write a three-message LinkedIn sequence inviting someone matching this profile to an executive roundtable on [TOPIC], held [DATE].

Message one: connection request, under 200 characters, references something specific about them, no pitch.
Message two: sent after they connect. The invitation — what the room is, who's in it, why them. Under 150 words.
Message three: one follow-up a week later. Brief, no pressure, gives them an easy no.

Peer to peer, not marketing. No exclamation points, no hype, no "I'd love to pick your brain."

Here's my base invitation:
[PASTE MESSAGE TWO FROM 5B]

I'm sending it to these people:
[NAME, TITLE, COMPANY, AND ONE SPECIFIC DETAIL FOR EACH]

Rewrite it once per person. Keep the structure and the offer identical. Change only the opening line so it references their specific situation. Don't flatter, and don't overreach on what you know about them.

Here are the registration responses for my roundtable on [TOPIC]:
[PASTE RESPONSES]

Build me a briefing:
Who's in the room, by name, title, and company.
The themes that appear across multiple responses.
The two or three tensions where people clearly disagree — that's where the good conversation is.
Anyone whose situation is unusual enough that I should be careful how I frame things.
Five questions to open with, ordered so the room warms up before it gets honest.

Flag anyone who indicated something they'd rather not discuss publicly.

Here's the transcript from my roundtable on [TOPIC]:
[PASTE]

Produce four things:

1. A summary of themes and the strongest insights, attributed by role rather than by name.
2. A follow-up email to attendees with the summary and one specific thing worth acting on this week.
3. An insight recap I can publish publicly — no names, no companies, no identifying details.
4. A short private note to me flagging which attendees showed signals worth a direct follow-up, and why.

Here's what I know about a prospect before our call:
[PASTE APPLICATION, INTAKE FORM, LINKEDIN PROFILE, EMAIL THREAD — WHATEVER YOU HAVE]

Build me a prep brief:

What they said their problem is, and what it's more likely to actually be.
Which of my services this points toward, and which would be wrong for them.
Eight diagnostic questions in the order I should ask them, moving from situation to impact to cost.
What they'll probably push back on, and what's behind each objection.
What I should be listening for that would change my recommendation.
Two things I should not assume.

Be direct about where the information is thin and I'll be guessing.

Here's the transcript from a discovery call:
[PASTE]

Produce:

A one-paragraph statement of their situation in their own language — close enough that they'd read it and feel understood.
The engagement I should recommend, and why that one.
Scope: what's included, stated specifically.
Exclusions: what's explicitly not included, so it doesn't get assumed in later.
Deliverables with a realistic timeline.
The three biggest risks to this engagement succeeding.
Proposal language for the situation and approach sections.

If anything in the call suggests they aren't a fit, say so before you write any of it.

Document exactly how we created this, including the inputs, the decision logic, the standards applied, the formatting, the output requirements, and the quality criteria. Turn that process into reusable instructions so I can reproduce this outcome with new client information.

Then tell me what you had to guess at, so I can make those decisions explicit instead of leaving them to chance next time.

Here's a task I'm about to start:
[DESCRIBE IT]

Here's the index of skills and assets I've already built:
[PASTE YOUR INDEX]

Tell me whether something on this list already covers it, partially covers it, or doesn't. If something partially covers it, tell me what to add rather than what to rebuild.