The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when Your project must pass a phase or stage-gate review to get approval for the next stage, and you need the evidence laid out against each gate criterion.
- {{gate_name}}
- {{gate_board}}
- {{gate_criteria}}
- {{evidence}}
- {{request}}
- {{page_limit}}
Full prompt and why it works
Prompt
Prepare the review pack for the {{gate_name}} gate of the project below, for {{gate_board}} to decide whether the project moves to the next stage, so that they can judge each gate criterion against evidence instead of a general sense of progress. Gate criteria, as our process defines them: """ {{gate_criteria}} """ Project status and evidence (plans, test results, approvals, budget figures, risk register extracts): """ {{evidence}} """ What we are asking for at this gate (funding, people, approval to start the next stage): {{request}} Use these headings: 1. Recommendation: one paragraph with the decision we are asking for (go, go with conditions, hold or stop) and the main reason. 2. Criteria assessment: a table with the columns Criterion, Status (met, partly met or not met), Evidence (the document or figure, named), Gap and plan to close it. 3. Budget and schedule: spend to date against plan, the forecast for the next stage, and the next stage's key dates, using only figures in the evidence. 4. Top risks for the next stage: up to 5, each with its owner and response. 5. Proposed conditions: for a "go with conditions", each condition with a date and an owner. 6. Decisions needed from the board. Keep it to {{page_limit}} pages. A good pack lets a board member who reads only the first paragraph and the table know what is being asked and what is still missing. For example, the form of one criteria row: "Business case approved | Partly met | Finance sign-off email, [date] | Benefits figures still with finance; due before the next stage starts". This example shows the form only. Do not mark a criterion as met without naming the evidence for it, and do not stretch "partly met" to cover something with no evidence at all. Leave out project history that does not bear on a criterion. If the evidence does not cover a criterion, mark it "not met: no evidence provided" and say what would satisfy it, rather than guessing. If the evidence suggests the honest recommendation is hold or stop, say so.
Variables
- {{gate_name}}
- The gate, for example "design approval" or "Gate 3: ready to build".
- {{gate_board}}
- Who decides, for example "the investment committee" or "the project board".
- {{gate_criteria}}
- The criteria the gate checks, copied from your process or template.
- {{evidence}}
- Status reports, plans, test results, approvals, budget figures and risk extracts.
- {{request}}
- What you want the board to approve, for example "funding of the build stage and two more developers".
- {{page_limit}}
- The maximum length, for example 4.
Why it works
- What good looks like. Each criterion is judged against named evidence, and the first paragraph plus the table must carry the whole case for a board member who reads no further.
- What to avoid. Nothing is marked met without evidence and "partly met" cannot cover a blank, the two ways gate reviews usually flatter a project.
- If unsure. Uncovered criteria are marked "not met: no evidence provided", and the pack must say so if the honest answer is hold or stop.