The decision you keep circling. Reasoned through, not around.
Sixty-six templates for thinking something through instead of just feeling your way through it: a structured decision framework, a pre-mortem that finds the failure before it happens, a neutral referee for the argument you keep having, a devil's advocate for the belief you're not sure you should trust. You give it the real situation. It reasons from what you gave it, flags what it can't verify, and never pretends a guess is a fact.
Works with ChatGPT · Claude · Gemini · whichever AI you already have open
each with a warning sign and one fix
free to start, no card
If you typed one of these into Google at midnight, this is the page.
- how do I make a big decision without missing something importantDecision Making Framework
- imagine my project already failed and work backward from therePre-Mortem Analysis
- who's right in this argument, get an unbiased verdictSettle the Argument (Neutral Referee)
- build the strongest case against something I already believeDevil's Advocate Analysis
- question a belief until I hit what it's actually built onSocratic Method Framework
- stress-test a theory's assumptions and the evidence behind itTheoretical Critique
- find the holes in my own thinking before someone else doesFind The Holes In My Thinking About This Idea
- what does this idea actually have to assume to be trueFind What Has To Be True For This Idea To Hold
Eight of sixty-six. Deciding, stress-testing, arguing both sides, and finding out what you actually believe and why.
What you type in about the real situation. What comes back reasoned through it.
Made the way you would make them: the real numbers, the real constraints, run once on the AI, not cleaned up after. The names and the businesses are invented. The reasoning is not.
Weighing a stable logistics job against a 12-person startup's first ops-hire offer
What you're actually deciding
You must decide whether to stay at your current logistics firm (≈200 employees) and push for the Q-1 promotion that's been promised, jump now into a 12-person startup as its first operations hire, or try to carve out a short-term, three-month trial contract with the startup before making a full commitment.
The recommendation
Take the three-month paid trial (Option C) – if you can lock it down; otherwise, negotiate a part-time/consulting bridge (Option D).
Why
- Information value: A short, bounded experiment dramatically reduces uncertainty about both the founders' competence and the fit of an ops-lead role.
- Leverage: You can still press for the Q1 promotion at your current firm during or after the trial; having a concrete "outside test" strengthens your bargaining position.
- Exit clarity: With predefined success/failure criteria, you avoid being stuck in a vague "pilot" that drags on.
Plus the full seven-option comparison table scored across financial security, growth, stability, impact, work-life, reputation, and payoff horizon, the cognitive biases most likely to distort this exact call (anchoring, loss aversion, the 10-day deadline's urgency effect), and what you'd need to believe for each option to be the right one.
Opening a second bakery before the first one's cash flow can absorb a bad year
Execution & Operational
The new shop opened on schedule, but the daily production line could not keep up with demand because the kitchen layout (identical to the first store) did not accommodate the higher foot-traffic expected in the new neighbourhood. Orders piled up, customers left, and waste rose sharply.
People & Leadership
The head baker, who refused to relocate, tried to split time between sites, resulting in chronic understaffing at the original bakery. Production quality slipped, leading to a spike in customer complaints and a loss of repeat business at both locations.
What to do about it today
- Conduct a capacity simulation using actual peak-hour sales data from the first store; redesign the kitchen layout now (even if it means modest additional spend) to include the second prep station before the lease-fit-out is finalized.
- Institute a mandatory on-site presence policy for the head baker (e.g., minimum 3 days/week at each location) and tie compliance to a clear incentive/penalty structure before the second site opens.
Plus six more failure scenarios (market response, financial, external, technical, communication, and the wrong assumption baked into the plan), each grounded in the budget and staffing constraints you actually typed in, with its own early-warning sign and one action for today.
Cash for an older sedan versus financing a certified pre-owned car with a warranty
Both sides, steel-manned
Side A: Buying the 2019 sedan outright for $14,000 leaves us debt-free immediately and lets us keep the money we would have borrowed in our savings buffer. With an emergency fund of $9,000 already in place, adding a modest loan would stretch that safety net and expose us to unnecessary interest costs.
Side B: Financing the 2022 certified-pre-owned for $21,000 at $410/month gives us a newer vehicle with only 30 k miles and a remaining power-train warranty through 100 k miles. The low monthly payment is manageable, and the warranty protects us from costly repairs (e.g., a transmission failure) that are far more likely in an older, higher-mileage car.
The verdict
| Issue | Who's right | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| A) Immediate debt-free status matters more than a modest loan | Side A | 55% |
| B) Newer car + warranty reduces likely repair risk enough to justify financing | Side B | 45% |
The de-escalation lines
- I see why you value the warranty and lower mileage, and I'll keep an eye on the older car's maintenance to make sure we don't get hit with a big surprise.
- I understand that staying debt-free protects our cash cushion, and I'll respect that decision while we monitor any repair needs closely.
Plus what's actually fact versus value versus misunderstanding, a read on the evidence each side brought (including what's missing that would settle it outright), and the prevention clause: the underlying disagreement this argument keeps coming back to.
Three steps. No blank page.
Pick the reasoning you need
A decision to make, a plan to pressure-test before it costs you, or an argument two people keep having. Search it the way you'd actually say it.
Feed it the real situation
Four to nine blanks: the options you're weighing, the constraints in play, both sides of the case. Not a blank page, your actual facts.
Send it to your AI, read what it flags
Ultra Prompt builds the expert prompt and hands it to ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini. Anything it can't verify from what you gave it comes back marked, never guessed.
Templates reason through one thing. An agent can hold the whole decision.
The same facts you type into a template can live inside an AI agent that knows your situation, your constraints, and the decisions you've already made, so every pressure-test and every verdict starts from your actual record instead of a blank chat. Three agents worth building:
The Options Desk
Holds every option you're weighing and the reasoning behind each one. Name a new option or a new constraint; it re-runs the comparison instead of making you start over.
Runs in Claude Projects, a Custom GPT, or a local modelThe Pre-Mortem Partner
Knows your project's real budget, timeline, and the people involved. Ask it to imagine failure at any horizon and it grounds every scenario in the constraints you already gave it, not generic risk.
Runs in your phone, through the AI you already useThe Neutral Referee
Remembers the recurring argument, not just today's round. Bring it the same kitchen-table dispute again and it names the pattern instead of re-litigating from zero.
Runs in Gemini, ChatGPT, or ClaudeBuild your options desk in an afternoon.
Agent Studio is in every Pro seat. Give it the decision you're facing, the constraints that aren't going away, and the way you actually think things through. Then bring it a new option or a new twist; back comes the comparison, the pre-mortem, or the verdict, grounded in what you told it, with anything it can't verify marked plainly. Export it as a Claude Project, a Custom GPT, a Gemini Gem, Copilot, or a local model on your own laptop. It runs on the AI you already have. Nothing to host.
Open Agent StudioOr have it built around your decision.
Want it built for you? A custom build is one conversation about what you do every week, then an agent brief written for you, exported to your AI, with a walkthrough. From $450, one time.
Ask about a custom buildFiles are yours to keep. The library, updates, and support ride the subscription.
One plan. Honest about what it does.
Unlimited generates, all 66 thinking templates and the full 1,000+ library, every technique and pipeline, and Agent Studio.
Start with 10 free promptsFree to start: 10 finished prompts a month, no card. Cancel anytime.
Build an agent that knows your situation and your constraints, then export it to Claude Projects, a Custom GPT, Gemini Gems, Copilot, or a local model. Your decision, on your own account.
See Agent StudioThe questions you ask before you trust a tool with a real decision.
Do I need ChatGPT or Claude to use this?
Yes, one of them, and the free tier of any of them works. Ultra Prompt builds the prompt and sends you there with it. You never paste anything by hand unless you want to.
Will it just tell me what I want to hear?
No. The templates ask it to flag the biases most likely to distort this exact decision and to state what you'd need to believe for each option to be right, including the one you're leaning toward. Read the caveats before you read the recommendation.
How is this different from just asking ChatGPT?
You can ask ChatGPT to help you decide and get a vague pro-con list. These templates ask for the stakes, the deadline, the real constraints, and the options you've already ruled out, then structure the reasoning around your specific situation instead of a generic framework.
Will it make up facts to fill gaps in what I gave it?
It's built not to. The pre-mortem and the neutral referee both mark anything they can't verify from your inputs instead of inventing a number, a study, or a statistic to sound complete.
Is this financial, legal, or medical advice?
No. It reasons through the situation you describe. A decision with real money, legal, or health stakes still deserves a professional's eyes before you act.
What happens to the decision after I make it?
Nothing you typed is sent anywhere but your own AI chat. Save the output if you want a record; Ultra Prompt doesn't keep a copy of the decision itself.