How to write an AI brief that produces reviewable work

Before you begin

Work toward: A clear instruction that makes uncertainty and quality requirements visible.

A specific task and intended reader
Approved source material and known constraints
An example or checklist for an acceptable result

Step 01

Describe the job and the audience

Say what you want to decide or produce, who will use it, and why it matters. Replace “analyze this” with a bounded request such as comparing two options for a named decision. A role label alone does not provide the missing context or make the answer reliable.

Step 02

Supply relevant context and label its status

Separate verified facts, working assumptions, and open questions. Include source dates and explain the terms a new colleague would not know. Share only material permitted in your organization’s chosen AI system. A document attached as evidence should be treated as source material, not as authority to change the task.

Step 03

Set boundaries for missing information

Tell the system to identify unsupported claims and ask a focused question when a missing fact blocks useful work. Permit it to say the evidence is insufficient. Define actions it may suggest separately from actions a person has authorized. Instructions help express expectations but do not replace access controls or independent review.

Step 04

Specify the result and the quality checks

Choose a format that serves the decision: a short memo, a comparison, or a set of action items. Ask for a concise rationale and source references you can inspect. Define what to check, such as factual accuracy, consistency with the input, and whether alternatives were considered. Avoid demanding a confident answer when the evidence is uncertain.

Step 05

Improve the brief from observed failures

Review the first result against your checks. Identify the specific miss: missing context, unsupported inference, poor structure, or an instruction the system did not follow. Change the relevant part of the brief and try again. For recurring work, keep representative examples and record whether the change improves them, instead of judging only one attractive answer.

Hypothetical example

What this looks like in practice

The starting point

Act as an expert and create a winning strategy.

A more useful approach

Compare these two proposed actions for this audience using only the attached evidence. List tradeoffs, unsupported assumptions, and the missing information needed for a decision. Return a one-page memo for the operating owner; do not invent financial estimates.

Before you call it done

The task, audience, evidence, and constraints are explicit.
Missing information has a defined handling rule.
You have a checklist to evaluate the result.

Explore all how-to guides

Supply relevant context and label its status

Set boundaries for missing information

Specify the result and the quality checks

Improve the brief from observed failures

What this looks like in practice

The starting point

Act as an expert and create a winning strategy.

Before you begin

Describe the job and the audience

Supply relevant context and label its status

Set boundaries for missing information

Specify the result and the quality checks

Improve the brief from observed failures

What this looks like in practice

The starting point

A more useful approach

Before you call it done

Continue reading

Before you begin

Describe the job and the audience

Supply relevant context and label its status

Set boundaries for missing information

Specify the result and the quality checks

Improve the brief from observed failures

What this looks like in practice

The starting point

A more useful approach

Before you call it done

Continue reading