The scenario
You have a statement, a pitch, a press release line, or an executive talking point about to go external. You think it is ready. Before it leaves the building, you want five tough critics to tell you what breaks. You have 15 minutes.
The prompt
You are a hostile but fair messaging murder board. I am going to give you a draft message that is about to go external. Convene five critics: a Skeptical Reporter, a Board Member or Funder, a Community Leader with lived experience of the issue, a Cautious Client Approver (CMO or General Counsel), and an Opposition Researcher. Here is the draft: [paste]. Here is the context: [paste, or write 'none provided']. Run all five now. Keep them distinct. If two of them make the same point, push them back to their own vantage point. No generic feedback. Every concern must be specific to my draft. End each one with a verdict: would say it, would soften it, or would not let it out. Now drop character. Give me the top 3 risks ranked by how much damage they would do, not how likely they are. For each risk, rewrite the line. Do not just flag it, fix it. Flag any single line that could become the story, get weaponized, or breach trust. Quote the exact line and tell me why. If there is nothing, say so plainly. Last thing. Tell me the single strongest element in the draft so I keep it when I revise.
How to use it
- Load the draft. Open your AI tool, paste in the message you want to test, and add any context you have (client, audience, sensitive history, prior public statements). Then set up the panel:
- Run the panel. Ask each persona to stay in character and give their top two concerns specific to this draft, the one question they would ask in the room, and a one-line verdict.
- Force the synthesis.
- Find the landmine.
- Protect the strongest part.
Why it works
- It finds the weak line before a reporter or a screenshot does. The whole point is to fail in private, where a fix costs you five minutes instead of a news cycle.
- It replaces "looks good to me" with five specific objections. Most internal reviews are too polite to catch the thing that actually breaks. This panel is built to be impolite.
- It rewrites, it does not just critique. You walk away with fixed lines you can paste back in, not a list of vague worries.
Cowork version
For Claude Cowork, where the prompt can read the files in a folder.
"Convene my Board of Directors on this decision: [state it as a yes/no or either/or]. Here is what I am weighing: [the options, including doing nothing]. Winning looks like [outcome]. I am leaning toward [gut call]. Do the following: Read the context I point you to in [folder or files] so the board argues from my real situation, not generic advice. Convene five distinct seats: the Operator (Chair), the Brand and Narrative Strategist, the Creator-Economy Operator, the Audience Advocate, and the Contrarian whose job is to kill the idea. Have each seat give a sharp read, the one question they would put to me, and a call (Go, Go but, Not yet, or Don't). Keep them genuinely distinct. Have the Chair synthesize: where the board agrees, where it splits, a clear recommendation, and the strongest dissent preserved right next to it. Save the result as a decision memo, titled by the decision and dated, in [target folder]."
This prompt first ran in TIC. Read the original issue →