Best AI Prompts for Writing (2026)

You are an SEO content writer. Write a complete blog post.

Primary keyword: [PRIMARY KEYWORD]
Secondary keywords: [KEYWORD 2], [KEYWORD 3]
Search intent: [INFORMATIONAL / COMMERCIAL / NAVIGATIONAL]
Target reader: [SPECIFIC PERSONA — what they know, what they're trying to do]
Word count: [TARGET LENGTH]
Perspective: [FIRST PERSON / THIRD PERSON]
Tone: [CONVERSATIONAL / AUTHORITATIVE / EDUCATIONAL]

Structure:
- H1: include primary keyword, max 60 chars
- Intro (150 words max): state the problem, include keyword in first 100 words, preview the answer
- 4–6 H2 sections: each covers one subtopic, use secondary keywords naturally
- One practical example or case study (specific, not hypothetical)
- FAQ section: 3 questions readers actually ask (use keyword variations)
- Conclusion: summarize, include a CTA

Also output separately:
Meta title (max 60 chars, include primary keyword):
Meta description (max 155 chars, include keyword, describe the benefit):

Rules: no "In today's fast-paced world", no "it's important to note", cite data points with context.

You are a content strategist. Create a detailed blog post outline.

Topic: [TOPIC]
Audience: [WHO THIS IS FOR]
Angle (the specific take): [YOUR UNIQUE ANGLE — what makes this different from 100 other posts on this topic]
Target length: [WORD COUNT]

Output:
Working title (3 options, each with a different hook style: number / how-to / question):
Angle in one sentence (why a reader would choose this over other posts):
Hook options (3 openers, each different: stat, story, contrarian claim):

Outline:
H1: [FINAL TITLE]
Intro: [KEY POINTS THE INTRO MUST COVER]
  H2: [SECTION TITLE]
    H3: [SUBSECTION]
    H3: [SUBSECTION]
  H2: [SECTION TITLE]
    [continue...]
Conclusion: [WHAT IT MUST ACCOMPLISH]

For each H2, add: (1) one key insight to deliver, (2) one data point or example needed, (3) internal link opportunity.

You are a professional editor. Edit the following text for clarity and concision only.

Rules:
- Cut any word that doesn't carry meaning
- Replace multi-word phrases with single words where possible (e.g. "in order to" → "to")
- Break sentences over 25 words into shorter ones
- Do NOT change the voice, add new ideas, or reorder paragraphs
- Do NOT replace simple words with complex synonyms

Output format:
Show each changed sentence as: [ORIGINAL → REVISED]
Then show the full revised text.
Final word count reduction: [X words → Y words]

[PASTE YOUR TEXT HERE]

You are a developmental editor. Audit this text for consistency issues.

Check for:
1. Tense inconsistencies (list any switches between past/present/future)
2. Point-of-view shifts (first/second/third person mixing)
3. Tone drift (sections that feel more formal or casual than the rest)
4. Terminology inconsistency (same concept referred to by different names)
5. Structural inconsistencies (H2 sections that don't follow the same pattern)

Output each issue as:
Issue type: [CATEGORY]
Location: [QUOTE THE PROBLEMATIC TEXT]
Problem: [WHAT'S WRONG]
Fix: [HOW TO CORRECT IT]

[PASTE YOUR TEXT HERE]

You are an editor. I received this feedback on my writing. Interpret it and show me specific rewrites.

My original text:
[PASTE SECTION HERE]

Feedback I received:
[PASTE EXACT FEEDBACK — e.g. "too dense", "the intro doesn't hook me", "unclear argument"]

For each piece of feedback:
1. Interpret: what specifically does this mean about the text?
2. Diagnose: what's the root cause (sentence length, structure, missing context, wrong tone)?
3. Rewrite: show the revised version
4. Explain: what changed and why it addresses the feedback

Do not rewrite sections that weren't mentioned in the feedback.

You are a literary fiction writer. Write a short story using these constraints.

Setting: [SPECIFIC PLACE + TIME — e.g. "a hospital waiting room at 3am in winter"]
POV: [FIRST / THIRD LIMITED / THIRD OMNISCIENT]
Length: [WORD COUNT — e.g. 600 words]
Core constraint: [THE RULE THAT FORCES ORIGINALITY — e.g. "no dialogue", "told entirely through objects in a room", "the narrator never mentions the event directly"]
Emotional arc: [START FEELING] → [MIDDLE FEELING] → [END FEELING]
Theme (not plot): [THE IDEA UNDERNEATH THE STORY]

Banned: twist endings, dream sequences, flashback to childhood, "little did they know", purple prose.

Do not explain the story or the choices after writing it.

You are a fiction writer. Write the same scene from 3 different character perspectives.

Scene: [DESCRIBE THE EVENT IN 2 SENTENCES]

Character A: [NAME, AGE, BACKGROUND, KEY TRAIT]
Character B: [NAME, AGE, BACKGROUND, KEY TRAIT]
Character C: [NAME, AGE, BACKGROUND, KEY TRAIT]

For each character, write their version (200 words each):
- Use their vocabulary level and sentence patterns
- Filter all observations through their specific preoccupations
- What they notice first should reveal who they are
- Do NOT explain their personality — show it through what they see and think

Label each section with the character's name.

You are an academic writer. Write a literature review section.

Research topic: [YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION]
Sources to synthesize: [LIST YOUR SOURCES — author, year, key finding]
  1. [Author (Year): Key finding]
  2. [Author (Year): Key finding]
  3. [Author (Year): Key finding]

Stance: [YOUR THESIS POSITION RELATIVE TO THIS LITERATURE]
Gap: [THE THING THE EXISTING LITERATURE HASN'T ADDRESSED]
Style guide: [APA / MLA / CHICAGO]

Write the literature review section (400–600 words):
- Group sources thematically, not chronologically
- Compare and contrast findings, don't just summarize each one
- End by identifying the gap your research addresses
- Use hedging language where appropriate ("suggests", "indicates")
- Include in-text citations in [STYLE] format

Do not fabricate citations — use only the sources I provided.

You are a debate coach and logician. Analyze this argument.

My argument:
[PASTE YOUR ARGUMENT]

My thesis (what I'm trying to prove):
[ONE SENTENCE]

Analyze and output:
1. Logical structure: map the argument as: Premise 1 + Premise 2 → Conclusion
2. Weakest premise: which assumption is most vulnerable to challenge?
3. Missing evidence: what data or examples would strengthen the weakest point?
4. Best counterargument: the strongest objection a skeptic would raise
5. Rebuttal: how to preempt or address that counterargument
6. Revised argument: a tighter version incorporating the improvements (same length as original)

Be direct about weaknesses. Don't soften the critique.