ChatGPT, Claude & Gemini Prompts for Nonprofits & Charities

Funder Research & Fit

Most wasted effort in fundraising happens before a word is drafted: applying to funders who were never going to say yes. These prompts help you score fit from the guidelines you paste, plan the research you will do yourself, check eligibility, read a funder's past awards for patterns, build a calendar your team can really deliver and decide when to say no. They never supply facts about a funder from memory.

Act as an experienced grants consultant advising a small charity or nonprofit on where to spend scarce application time.

Funder guidelines (pasted text only): {{FUNDER_GUIDELINES}}
Our organization in brief: {{ORG_PROFILE}}
The project we might fund: {{PROJECT_IDEA}}

Score our fit against the funder using only the guidelines text above.
1. Pull out the funder's stated priorities, eligible applicants, eligible costs, exclusions, grant size range and deadlines, quoting the exact words for each.
2. Build a table scoring us 0 to 3 on mission match, eligibility, project match, size of ask, and our capacity to deliver. Give a one-line reason from the text for every score.
3. List anything the guidelines do not say that we would need to confirm by phoning or emailing the funder.
4. Finish with a plain recommendation: apply, ask a question first, or skip.

Rules: do not add facts about the funder from memory, such as past grants or giving totals. If the guidelines are silent, write [NOT STATED]. Scores are a judgment aid, not a prediction of success.
Output: the extract, the scoring table, the questions, the recommendation in two sentences.

You are a prospect researcher at a charity. I will do the research myself from public sources; I want a plan, not answers.

Funder name: {{FUNDER_NAME}}
Country and funder type (private foundation, trust, corporate giving, government program): {{FUNDER_TYPE_AND_COUNTRY}}
Size of grant we are thinking of asking for: {{ASK_SIZE}}

Produce:
1. Ten questions to answer about this funder, such as what they actually fund, typical grant sizes, geographic limits, how decisions are made, who the decision-makers are and whether they accept unsolicited approaches.
2. For each question, the kind of public source to check (the funder's own website and annual report, tax filings (Form 990 or 990-PF for US funders) or the charity regulator's register, grant databases and open grants data, news, grantee announcements). Describe source types; do not name specific records or figures.
3. A 45-minute research routine in a sensible order.
4. A short template for a one-page funder profile I can fill in.
5. Three signs I should stop and not apply.

Rules: do not tell me facts about this funder from memory and do not invent grant sizes, trustees or past awards. If you mention anything specific, tag it [VERIFY].
Output: numbered plan and the blank profile template.

Act as a careful grants officer reading a funding call for the applicant's side. Your job is to stop us wasting a month on an application that cannot succeed.

Funding call text: {{FUNDING_CALL_TEXT}}
Facts about our organization (legal form, registration, income, location, track record): {{ORG_FACTS}}
Our planned project and ask: {{PROJECT_AND_ASK}}

Create:
1. A checklist of every eligibility rule, exclusion, match-funding requirement, document and attachment the call mentions, each with a tick, cross or question mark against our facts and a note explaining why.
2. A list of ambiguities in the call that deserve a question to the funder, written as short questions I can send.
3. A "red flags" list: anything that suggests poor fit, an unrealistic timeline, or onerous reporting.
4. A document checklist with the deadline for each item, working back from the closing date.

Rules: use only the call text and the facts I gave. Do not assume rules from other funders. For anything about legal status, charity registration or tax treatment, write [CONFIRM WITH FUNDER OR ADVISER] instead of guessing.
Output: four labeled sections, with the checklist as a table.

You are a grants analyst studying what a funder really rewards, as opposed to what its website says.

List of the funder's past awards that I copied from their public records (organization, amount, purpose, year): {{PAST_AWARDS_LIST}}
Our project idea: {{PROJECT_IDEA}}
The amount we are considering asking for: {{ASK_SIZE}}

Analyze only the list I pasted:
1. Group the awards by purpose and describe the themes you can see, with counts you calculate from the list.
2. Describe the range and middle of grant sizes and where our ask falls. Show the arithmetic.
3. Note what type of applicant appears to win (size, sector, local or national) and what seems rare. Label each observation as clear from the data, a weak signal, or speculation.
4. Say how our idea sits against the pattern and what we could change in framing, partners or ask size.
5. List what this list cannot tell us, such as how many applied and how many were rejected.

Rules: do not use outside knowledge of this funder or add awards. Do not claim a pattern from fewer than three examples. Past awards do not predict future decisions.
Output: short sections with a small table of themes and counts.

Act as a development manager building a realistic fundraising calendar for a small team.

Funding opportunities we are considering, (one line each: funder, ask, deadline): {{OPPORTUNITIES}}
Who writes applications and how many hours a month they have: {{STAFF_CAPACITY}}
Financial year end and key program dates: {{FINANCIAL_YEAR_END_AND_DATES}}

Create:
1. A tracker table with columns: funder, stage (researching, preparing, submitted, awaiting, awarded, declined), deadline, ask, estimated hours to apply, owner, next action, next action date.
2. A month-by-month calendar for the next twelve months that places application work backwards from each deadline, including time for budget sign-off and board approval where the grant is large.
3. A capacity check: total hours needed versus hours available per month, with the months that are overloaded and what to drop or postpone.
4. A weekly ten-minute review routine.

Where a date is missing, mark it [DATE NEEDED], and give no probability of success for any application.
Output: the tracker as a table, the calendar as a list by month, then the capacity check.

You are a trusted adviser to a charity director deciding whether to bid for a grant or contract.

Opportunity summary: {{OPPORTUNITY_SUMMARY}}
Our capacity, reserves and current workload: {{ORG_CAPACITY}}
Estimated hours to apply and to deliver: {{EFFORT_HOURS}}

Prepare a decision memo:
1. The case for bidding and the case against, each in four bullet points drawn from the information above.
2. Hidden costs: match funding, reporting burden, restricted funds that do not cover core costs, staff time, delayed payment, and whether full cost recovery is possible.
3. Mission drift check: would delivering this change what we do or who we serve?
4. Questions we must answer before deciding, with a suggested owner.
5. A recommendation (bid, bid with conditions, or decline), with the conditions stated plainly.

Mark any missing cost as [ESTIMATE NEEDED]. Flag points the board, auditor or an adviser should confirm.
Output: a one-page memo with the recommendation first.

The Case: Need, Theory of Change & Evaluation

Funders fund evidence and a believable route from activity to change. Draft a statement of need from your own data, state your theory of change with its assumptions, build a logic model without invented targets, choose indicators you can really collect, outline an evaluation plan for a small team and write the risks section. Each prompt flags missing evidence instead of filling it.

Act as a senior grant writer who has read thousands of applications and dislikes padding.

Evidence I hold, such as our service data, local figures I have sourced, and feedback we collected: {{LOCAL_EVIDENCE}}
Who we serve: {{PEOPLE_SERVED}}
The funder's stated priorities: {{FUNDER_PRIORITIES}}
Word limit: {{WORD_LIMIT}}

Write a statement of need that:
1. Opens with the specific problem for specific people in a specific place.
2. Uses only the evidence above, each fact placed where it does the most work, and explains what it means in plain words.
3. Shows what is missing from existing provision without blaming others.
4. Links the need to the funder's priorities using their own language.
5. Stops where the solution begins.

Rules: never add a statistic, quotation, date or source that I did not supply, and do not write "studies show". Where an obvious claim needs evidence, insert [EVIDENCE NEEDED: what and where to find it]. Do not use stories about identifiable people unless I have marked them as consented in the evidence.
Output: the statement within the word limit, then a list of the evidence gaps you flagged, ranked by importance.

You are an evaluation consultant who works with small charities. Help me write a theory of change that is honest about what we know.

The problem we address: {{PROBLEM}}
What we do (activities): {{ACTIVITIES}}
The change we hope to see: {{INTENDED_CHANGE}}
Evidence we have that it works, including our own data: {{EVIDENCE_YOU_HAVE}}

Draft:
1. A causal chain written in sentences: because of the problem, we do X, which leads to short-term changes in Y, then medium-term changes in Z, then the long-term change.
2. For every link, the assumption that must hold for it to work, and whether our evidence supports it (supported, partly supported, untested).
3. The external factors outside our control that could help or hinder.
4. The three weakest links and a cheap way to test each.
5. A single paragraph version suitable for a grant application.

Rules: do not cite research or claim "evidence shows" unless I pasted it above. If a link relies on general knowledge, mark it [GENERAL ASSUMPTION: check the literature]. Do not overstate what a small program can change.
Output: the chain as a numbered list, the assumptions table, then the paragraph.

Act as a monitoring and evaluation officer building a logic model that a funder can read in one minute.

Program description: {{PROGRAMME_DESCRIPTION}}
Resources available (staff, volunteers, money, space, partners): {{RESOURCES}}
Timeframe of the grant: {{TIMEFRAME}}

Build a logic model as a table with these columns: inputs, activities, outputs, short-term outcomes, medium-term outcomes, long-term impact.
Then:
1. Number every row so I can cross-refer from the narrative.
2. Make outputs countable things we deliver (sessions, people reached) and outcomes changes in people or conditions. Where I have mixed them up, say so and fix it.
3. Mark with [TARGET NEEDED] each output or outcome where I have not supplied a number, rather than choosing one.
4. Add a short note under the table listing three assumptions the model rests on.
5. Offer a plain-text version for funders who only accept text boxes.

Do not add outcomes the program cannot produce within the timeframe, and leave unspecified numbers as [TARGET NEEDED].
Output: the table, the three assumptions, the text version.

You are an evaluation adviser helping a small team choose measures it can really collect.

Outcomes we want to show: {{INTENDED_OUTCOMES}}
Data and tools we can realistically gather (forms, registers, partner records, surveys, staff time): {{DATA_YOU_CAN_COLLECT}}
Who we serve and any ethical or literacy considerations: {{BENEFICIARY_GROUP}}

For each outcome:
1. Propose one or two indicators and say whether each is a count, a change score, a percentage or a short description of change.
2. State the exact data needed, who collects it, when, and how long it takes per person.
3. Describe a baseline and a follow-up point, and say when a comparison is not practical.
4. Name the main limits of each measure, such as self-report bias, small numbers or loss to follow-up.
5. Suggest an easier alternative where my collection capacity is too thin.

Then list the indicators I should drop because they would cost more than they teach.

Rules: do not invent targets, existing results or validated-tool names; if a recognized outcome measure might exist, write [CHECK: is there a validated tool for this?]. Respect consent and data protection: flag where personal data would be involved and that I should check the local rules.
Output: one table row per indicator, followed by the drop list.

Act as a pragmatic evaluator writing an evaluation plan for a grant application. The funder expects rigor, but our team is small and the budget is modest.

Program: {{PROGRAMME}}
Outcomes and indicators we have already chosen: {{OUTCOMES_AND_INDICATORS}}
Evaluation budget and staff time available: {{EVALUATION_RESOURCES}}

Write a plan with these headings:
1. Evaluation questions: no more than four.
2. Approach and methods, proportionate to the budget, and why we chose them over heavier options.
3. Data collection timetable, with responsibilities.
4. Analysis: how we will turn the data into findings, including how we will handle missing data and small numbers.
5. Ethics, consent and data protection steps, flagged for checking against local law.
6. How we will learn from the results and share them, including negative findings.
7. Limits: an honest paragraph on what this evaluation cannot show.

Promise no causal claims or independent evaluation unless I stated it. Mark figures needed from me [INPUT NEEDED]. Plain English, under 600 words.
Output: the plan with the seven headings.

Act as a program manager and skeptical grant assessor combined. We want to show a funder that we have thought about what could go wrong.

Program plan: {{PROGRAMME_PLAN}}
Risks we already know about: {{KNOWN_RISKS}}
Partners and their roles: {{PARTNERS}}

Do the following:
1. Add any risks I have missed under these headings: people (staff, volunteers, participants), delivery, finance, partners, safeguarding and data, external environment.
2. Rate each risk for likelihood and impact on a three-point scale using only my plan as the basis, and explain each rating in a clause.
3. For each risk give a practical mitigation we could afford, an owner by role, and an early warning sign.
4. Name the one risk that would stop the project and describe the fallback.
5. Write a 150-word application-ready summary of the main risks and how we manage them.

Use [CONFIRM WE HAVE THIS] where a mitigation depends on a policy or insurance I did not list. Avoid scare language and do not minimize real harm risks.
Output: a risk table and then the 150-word summary.

Applications, Budgets & Funder Reports

From the first letter of inquiry to the final report. Write a short LOI, an organization background that proves capacity, a budget narrative that ties every line to an activity, a project description with SMART objectives, a sustainability section that does not overpromise, and a progress report that is candid about misses and a follow-up after a declined application. Two prompts act as editor and assessor: one cuts an answer to the word limit, the other scores your draft against the funder's own criteria.

Act as a development director writing a letter of inquiry (or short expression of interest) to a funder we have not yet funded us.

Funder's priorities, in their words: {{FUNDER_PRIORITIES}}
Project summary: {{PROJECT_SUMMARY}}
Amount requested and total project cost: {{ASK_AND_COST}}
Facts about our organization and track record: {{ORG_FACTS}}

Write a letter of no more than 480 words with this shape:
1. An opening that names the funder's priority and the need in two sentences.
2. What we will do, for whom, over what period.
3. The change we expect, stated modestly, with only numbers I supplied.
4. Why we are the right organization, using only the facts above.
5. The ask, the total cost and what the grant would pay for.
6. A courteous close inviting a conversation.

Rules: do not invent results, partners, endorsements or statistics. If a claim would be stronger with evidence, add [EVIDENCE NEEDED] in brackets after it. Use "we", plain verbs and no jargon. Avoid words such as "innovative", "unique" and "impactful" unless backed by something specific.
Output: the letter, then a list of any facts the funder is likely to ask next.

You are an editor who turns a pile of internal facts into a persuasive but honest "about us" section for a grant application.

Facts about our organization (founding, legal form, mission, services, staff, volunteers, income band, governance): {{ORG_FACTS}}
Evidence of track record, such as service data, awards, partner feedback and past grants: {{TRACK_RECORD_EVIDENCE}}
Word limit: {{WORD_LIMIT}}

Write the section so that it:
1. Opens with what we do and for whom, not with our history.
2. Gives the three strongest pieces of evidence that we can deliver this kind of work, each with its source from my notes.
3. Shows governance and financial management in a sentence, using only what I provided.
4. Names relevant partners or past funders only if they appear in my notes.
5. Ends with why this project is the next step for us.

Rules: no invented awards, numbers, registration details, reserves or quotes. Where a funder would expect a fact I did not give (for example, registration number or latest accounts), add [DETAIL NEEDED]. Use the right term for our legal form: 501(c)(3) in the US, registered charity or CIO in the UK, only if I stated which applies.
Output: the section within the word limit and a short list of missing details.

Act as a finance manager at a charity writing the budget justification for a grant application.

Budget lines with amounts (pasted from our spreadsheet): {{BUDGET_LINES}}
What the project will do, so costs can be tied to activities: {{PROJECT_ACTIVITIES}}
The funder's rules on eligible costs, overheads and match funding: {{FUNDER_RULES}}

Write the narrative:
1. Go through each budget line and explain what it buys, how the figure was calculated (rate times quantity) and why it is needed for the activity.
2. Group lines into the funder's categories if they are named in the rules.
3. Show how core and overhead costs are shared, using only the method I describe; if I gave none, write [COST ALLOCATION METHOD NEEDED].
4. List any line that looks unusually high, unusually low, or poorly linked to an activity, as a polite internal query.
5. Check the arithmetic: recompute totals and report any mismatch.

Rules: use only my amounts. Do not make up salary scales, quotes, supplier names or in-kind values. Do not give tax, VAT or accounting advice; flag anything such as VAT treatment as [CONFIRM WITH FINANCE ADVISER]. Keep language plain so a non-financial assessor can follow it.
Output: the narrative by line, the query list, the arithmetic check.

You are a grants adviser who knows that funders worry about what happens when the money ends.

The project: {{PROJECT}}
Our funding plan beyond this grant (other funders, earned income, partner commitments, in-kind support): {{FUNDING_PLAN}}
Commitments already made by partners or commissioners: {{PARTNER_COMMITMENTS}}

Write a sustainability section that:
1. Separates what will continue without grant funding (skills, systems, partnerships) from what needs ongoing money.
2. Describes the funding sources we are pursuing, with status for each: secured, in discussion, planned, or hoped for.
3. Explains the exit or step-down plan if funding does not continue, including how we would treat participants fairly.
4. States the lessons or resources we will share so the work has value beyond our organization.
5. Is realistic about risk without sounding defeatist.

Rules: do not describe any funding as secured unless my notes say it is. No invented pledges, letters of support or commissioner statements. Where evidence of commitment is thin, add [COMMITMENT NEEDED] so I can obtain it before submitting. Maximum 350 words.
Output: the section followed by a short list of commitments to secure in writing.

Act as a ruthless but respectful editor of grant applications.

The question as the funder asked it: {{QUESTION_ASKED}}
My draft answer: {{DRAFT_ANSWER}}
Hard limit (words or characters, and whether spaces count): {{LIMIT}}

Do this:
1. Say in one sentence what the question is really asking.
2. List which parts of my draft answer it, which are context the assessor does not need, and which are missing.
3. Produce a version that fits the limit. Count the words and show the count.
4. Keep every fact, figure and claim exactly as in my draft; you may shorten wording but not change meaning.
5. Show me what you cut as a short bullet list so I can restore anything vital.
6. Suggest one stronger opening sentence in plain English.

Keep every claim exactly as drafted, and mark any claim without evidence [EVIDENCE?]. If the limit makes a good answer impossible, say so.
Output: the diagnosis, the trimmed answer with word count, the cuts list.

Act as a volunteer assessor on a funder's review panel who has twenty applications to read tonight. You are fair but you do not reward waffle.

Assessment criteria and scoring guide published by the funder: {{ASSESSMENT_CRITERIA}}
Our draft application, pasted in full: {{DRAFT_APPLICATION}}

Review the draft:
1. For each criterion, give a score on the funder's scale, quote the strongest and weakest sentence from the draft, and say what an assessor would write in their comments.
2. List every claim the assessor could not verify from the application itself.
3. Identify contradictions, vague phrases and places where the budget and narrative do not match.
4. Rank the five improvements that would raise the score most, with a specific edit for each.
5. Give an overall verdict: ready, needs a revision, or rethink.

Score only against the published criteria and give no chance-of-success figure. Do not rewrite the whole application.
Output: a criteria table, then the lists in the order above.

You are a program manager writing a report to a funder that has supported our work. We want it honest, readable and useful to both sides.

Original grant objectives and agreed outcomes: {{GRANT_OBJECTIVES}}
Results and data so far (numbers, feedback, spend against budget): {{RESULTS_DATA}}
What went wrong, changed or surprised us: {{CHALLENGES}}

Write the report with these sections:
1. Summary: three sentences a trustee of the funder can read in thirty seconds.
2. Progress against each objective, matching the funder's wording, with result versus target taken only from my data.
3. What we learned, including what did not work and what we changed.
4. Spend against budget with a plain explanation of any variance, using my figures.
5. Beneficiary voice: include only quotes and stories I have marked as consented.
6. Next steps and anything we would like the funder's advice on.

Rules: never round up or restate a result more favorably than the data supports. If a target was missed, say so directly and give the reason. Do not invent quotes, outcomes or figures; mark gaps [DATA NEEDED]. Keep it under 900 words unless the funder specified otherwise.
Output: the report, then a list of attachments the funder may expect.

Act as a development manager who treats a "no" as the start of a relationship with the funder.

Funder and the decision we received, quoted exactly: {{DECISION_WORDING}}
Any feedback the funder gave, or "none given": {{FUNDER_FEEDBACK}}
Our application summary and what we learned about our own weak points: {{OUR_REFLECTIONS}}

Produce:
1. A short, gracious email of 90 to 130 words that thanks the funder, accepts the decision without arguing and asks, once, whether they can share any feedback or say when we might reapply.
2. Three tactful questions to ask if they agree to a call, aimed at learning rather than reopening the decision.
3. A one-page internal debrief template with sections for: reasons given, reasons we suspect (labeled as suspicion), changes to make before the next application, and whether to apply again.
4. A list of other funders or routes to try for the same project, described as types of source to research, not named awards.

Keep the email free of blame and of any pressure to reconsider, and rely only on the feedback quoted above.
Output: the email, the call questions, the debrief template and the route list.

You are a senior grant writer drafting the core narrative of a funding proposal for a small organization.

Project notes (what we will do, for whom, where, when, with whom): {{PROJECT_NOTES}}
The funder's questions, headings and word or page limits, pasted as written: {{FUNDER_QUESTIONS_AND_LIMITS}}
Evidence we hold that the project will work, such as our own data, partner letters or published sources we have read: {{EVIDENCE_YOU_HAVE}}

Draft:
1. Project description under the funder's own headings, within each limit, written in the order an assessor will read it.
2. Three to five SMART objectives. Make each specific and time-bound, and write [TARGET NEEDED] wherever I have not given a number.
3. An executive summary of 150 words that a busy panel member could read first and understand the whole project.
4. A cover-letter paragraph of 80 words for the person submitting the application.
5. A short list of claims in the draft that still need evidence, ranked by how much an assessor will care.

Constraints: use only the notes and evidence above, and keep sentences short. Where I wrote an aim but no measure, say so rather than supplying a measure.
Output: the four drafts and the evidence list.

Donor Appeals & Stewardship

Appeals work when they are specific and honest, and thank-yous work when they report back. These prompts handle a letter built on one consented story, a three-email sequence, a thank-you that says what the gift did, Gift Aid and receipt wording for review by your adviser, a lapsed-donor note, an invitation to give monthly, a donor-export segmentation review, a Giving Tuesday and year-end campaign plan and a gentle legacy page. None of them use guilt or invented urgency.

Act as a direct-mail copywriter who respects donors and the people the charity serves.

Consented story or case (as told to us, with permission to share and the agreed level of identification): {{CONSENTED_STORY}}
The specific ask, including amount options and what each amount funds, using only costs we have confirmed: {{THE_ASK}}
Donor segment and what they have given before: {{DONOR_SEGMENT}}
Signer's name and role: {{SIGNER}}

Write a one-page appeal letter:
1. An opening that puts the reader in a moment from the story, in the person's own terms.
2. The problem behind the story, in two sentences.
3. What the donor's gift does, tied to the stated amounts.
4. A single clear ask, repeated in the postscript.
5. A warm, specific close.

Rules: use only details from the story as supplied; do not embellish, add dialogue, change ages or circumstances, or create a composite person. Do not use guilt, shock imagery or pity language. Do not state outcomes or costs not given. Where the ask lacks a confirmed cost, write [COST NEEDED]. Plain words, 330 to 400 words.
Output: the letter, then three subject lines or envelope teasers, then a checklist confirming the story's consent and accuracy.

You are an email fundraising specialist writing for a small charity with a modest list.

Campaign facts (what we raise money for, target, cost per outcome that we have confirmed): {{CAMPAIGN_FACTS}}
Deadline and any matched-giving terms in the exact words of the match agreement: {{DEADLINE_AND_MATCH}}
Donation link and suggested amounts: {{GIVING_LINK_AND_AMOUNTS}}

Write three emails to send over about ten days:
1. Launch: the need, the plan, the ask. 
2. Reminder: progress so far, using only figures I will update where marked [CURRENT TOTAL], and one reason to give now.
3. Final day: a short, plain message with the deadline.

For each email provide two subject lines, preview text under 90 characters, body copy of 120 to 200 words, and one button label.

Rules: no false urgency. Only describe a deadline or match if the facts above establish it. Do not invent donor numbers, totals, testimonials or percentages. Do not promise what a donation will achieve beyond the confirmed cost information. Include a reminder line to add an unsubscribe link and organization address as the law in our country requires; I will check the exact requirement.
Output: three labeled emails and a send schedule that uses the dates I gave.

Act as a donor relations officer drafting a thank-you that a supporter would be glad to receive.

Donor's first name and gift (amount, date, designation if any): {{DONOR_AND_GIFT}}
What we can truthfully say the gift has done or will do, with source: {{WHAT_GIFT_DID}}
Relationship notes (first gift, long-term supporter, volunteer, in memory of someone): {{RELATIONSHIP_NOTES}}
Signer: {{SIGNER}}

Write a letter of 130 to 180 words that:
1. Thanks the donor in the first sentence, by name, without a "we" speech.
2. Tells them one concrete thing their support made possible, only from the material above.
3. Reflects any relationship detail naturally and sensitively; if the gift is in memory of someone, keep the tone gentle and avoid cheerful language.
4. Offers a way to ask questions or see more, with a named contact.
5. Does not ask for another gift.

Rules: do not invent results, anecdotes, beneficiary quotes or numbers. If the material is thin, write what is true and shorter. Do not mention tax benefits or receipts unless I included approved wording. Write as a person, not a template.
Output: the letter and an alternative two-line email version.

You are a stewardship specialist writing to supporters who have not given for a while. The note must feel like a person wrote it.

What we know about this group (last gift period, typical giving, how they first came to us): {{LAPSED_SEGMENT}}
What has genuinely happened at our charity since they last gave (confirmed facts only): {{WHAT_HAS_CHANGED}}
A low-pressure next step we can offer (update, visit, survey, small gift): {{NEXT_STEP}}

Write:
1. A 110 to 150 word letter or email that acknowledges the gap without guilt, shares one or two real developments, and offers the next step.
2. A shorter text-message version of 40 words or fewer if we hold consent to text them.
3. A three-line phone script for a volunteer caller, with a gracious way to end if the supporter does not want to continue.
4. A suppression reminder: who should not receive this (for example anyone who asked us to stop, or is bereaved).

Do not imply the supporter did anything wrong. Remind me to check consent rules for email, text and phone in our country.
Output: the three versions and the suppression reminder.

Act as a membership and regular-giving manager. Write a respectful invitation for our supporters to give monthly.

Who this goes to (one-off donors, event participants, new donors): {{AUDIENCE}}
What monthly gifts fund and a monthly amount we can show is useful, using only confirmed costs: {{WHAT_MONTHLY_GIFTS_FUND}}
What supporters receive: updates, reports, a named contact, nothing else: {{SUPPORTER_BENEFITS}}
Channel: web page, email or letter: {{CHANNEL}}

Create:
1. A headline and 120-word body that explains the value of steady support in plain terms.
2. Three amount options with a sentence for each saying what that amount helps cover, without inventing unit costs I did not provide.
3. A short answer to the three most likely objections ("I can't commit", "Can I stop any time?", "How is my data used?"). For anything about canceling or data use, write [INSERT OUR ACTUAL POLICY].
4. A thank-you screen message of 40 words.
5. A reminder to review our direct-debit or card-payment wording against the rules in our country.

Keep the tone free of pressure and guilt.
Output: the labeled copy blocks.

You are a fundraising data analyst helping a small charity read a donor export.

An anonymized extract from our donor records: donor ID, first gift date, last gift date, number of gifts, total given, largest gift, giving channel, and any recorded consent for contact: {{DONOR_EXPORT}}
The decision I am making (who to invite to give monthly, who to write to for a lapsed appeal, who to thank personally): {{DECISION}}
Our definitions of "lapsed" and "recent" (for example, no gift for 12 months): {{DEFINITIONS}}

Work only from the rows I pasted:
1. Propose five segments with clear rules (for example lapsed, recent first-time, repeat, higher-value, regular) and count how many donors fall in each, showing how you counted.
2. For each segment, say what message or action suits it and what to avoid.
3. Flag donors to exclude or handle by hand, such as those with no recorded consent for the channel.
4. List limits of the extract, such as the period covered and likely duplicate rows.
5. Tell me three checks to run in our own database before acting.

Make no assumptions about wealth, age or motive, and predict nothing. If I pasted fewer than 20 rows, call the segments illustrative. Remind me to check that our privacy notice covers this analysis.
Output: a segment table with counts, actions and the cautions.

Act as a legacy-giving officer writing gently about gifts in wills.

Our work in a sentence and what legacy gifts could support, using only commitments the trustees have approved: {{WORK_AND_PURPOSE}}
Country and any approved wording about taking professional advice: {{COUNTRY_AND_APPROVED_WORDING}}
Contact person and how to reach them: {{CONTACT}}

Write:
1. A web page of 250 to 300 words that explains, without jargon, that anyone can choose to leave a gift in their will, that family and friends come first, and that we are grateful for any gift. Include a short sentence encouraging people to speak to a solicitor or will writer.
2. A reply of 120 to 160 words to a supporter who emails to ask how to leave us something, which answers warmly, offers a private conversation and does not ask about the size of the estate.
3. A short, gentle paragraph for someone who tells us a loved one has left us a gift.
4. Five internal checks before publishing, written as questions for our legal or tax adviser.

Rules: do not explain tax treatment, inheritance rules, charity wording for wills or any legal effect of a gift; write [INSERT APPROVED WORDING FROM OUR SOLICITOR] where that is needed. Invent no legators, amounts or stories, and use no urgency language.
Output: the page, the reply, the paragraph and the questions.

Act as a fundraising compliance assistant reviewing donor-facing wording. You are not a lawyer or tax adviser; say so.

Country and organization type (for example US 501(c)(3), UK registered charity or CIO): {{COUNTRY_AND_ORG_TYPE}}
Our draft acknowledgement, receipt or donation-form wording: {{DRAFT_WORDING}}
Status details I can confirm (legal name, registration number or EIN, any goods or services given to the donor): {{STATUS_DETAILS}}

Review the draft:
1. List every statement about tax relief, deductibility, Gift Aid, receipts or tax status.
2. For each, write the question that the tax authority's own current guidance would answer (in the US, IRS guidance on written acknowledgements and on gifts where goods or services are provided; in the UK, HMRC Gift Aid guidance) and tag it [VERIFY WITH IRS / HMRC GUIDANCE OR YOUR ADVISER]. Do not state the rule itself.
3. Note details commonly expected in an acknowledgement, such as legal name, registration number or EIN, gift date and amount, and whether goods or services were provided.
4. Flag misleading phrases such as "tax-free", "costs you nothing" or any promised refund or deduction.
5. Rewrite the wording plainly, leaving placeholders for legal text.

Constraints: state no rates, thresholds or deadlines, and use only the status details I gave.
Output: a table of statements, the rewrite, then questions for our adviser.

You are a fundraising campaign manager planning a short, high-volume giving season (Giving Tuesday, end-of-year or both) for a small team.

What the campaign raises money for and the confirmed cost of each item: {{CAMPAIGN_FACTS}}
Our lists, social following and results from previous seasons (or "none"): {{LISTS_AND_PAST_RESULTS}}
Match or challenge-gift terms in the exact words of the agreement (or "none"): {{MATCH_TERMS}}
Key dates, team and budget: {{DATES_TEAM_BUDGET}}

Create:
1. A campaign theme in one sentence and three plain-language messages.
2. A week-by-week calendar from preparation to final-day push to follow-up, listing each email, post, mailing and phone task with an owner role.
3. Outlines (not full copy) of the launch, reminder and final-day emails, and of the thank-you that goes out within two days of each gift.
4. Three cautious targets (low, expected, high) built only from my past results, each with its assumption. If I gave none, say targets cannot be set and propose a small test.
5. Compliance reminders, as questions for our adviser: year-end receipts and tax paperwork, the match terms, and email and text consent rules in our country.

Constraints: use no response rates or giving benchmarks from memory, and describe the match only as the agreement states. Create urgency only from real dates.
Output: the plan with a table for the calendar.

Major Gifts, Partners, Events & Community Fundraising

Bigger gifts come from relationships. Prepare a briefing from your own records, plan a discovery conversation that is about listening, write a one-page proposal tied to confirmed costs, pitch a business with a modest and specific idea, design a partnership menu you can deliver, plan a fundraising event with an honest money forecast, equip people who fundraise for you with a starter pack and thank everyone quickly afterwards.

Act as a prospect researcher preparing a briefing for a fundraiser before a meeting with a supporter.

Our own records about this person (giving history, event attendance, volunteering, past conversations): {{DONOR_RECORDS}}
Public information I have already checked and am comfortable using: {{VERIFIED_PUBLIC_INFO}}
Purpose of the meeting: {{MEETING_PURPOSE}}

Write a one-page briefing:
1. Relationship summary: how long, how involved, and the last three touchpoints, taken from the records.
2. What we can reasonably infer about their interests, labeled "recorded fact" or "inference", with the reason for each inference.
3. Sensitive points to avoid or handle with care (for example anything the records show about bereavement, complaints or privacy requests).
4. Three conversation starters rooted in the records, not in guesses about wealth.
5. Gaps: what we do not know and should ask rather than assume.
6. A suggested next step after the meeting.

Rules: do not estimate wealth, capacity or likelihood to give. Do not search for or add information beyond what I pasted. Do not include sensitive personal data that is not needed. Remind me to confirm that our privacy notice covers how we research and record supporters.
Output: the briefing with headed sections, no more than 400 words.

You are a major-gifts coach helping a fundraiser who is nervous about asking.

What I know about the supporter and the relationship: {{SUPPORTER_BACKGROUND}}
The project or area we may invite them to support: {{PROJECT_AREA}}
Stage of the relationship (new, cultivating, ready to explore a gift): {{RELATIONSHIP_STAGE}}

Produce:
1. A meeting plan with a goal that is about learning, not asking: opening, three themes, close.
2. Twelve open questions that explore what matters to them and how they like to be involved, in order, with notes on when to stay quiet.
3. How to explain our work in 60 seconds using only the facts I provide.
4. Signals that they might be ready to talk about a gift, and a gentle way to test that.
5. What to do if they raise a concern or ask for information I do not have: a short script that promises a follow-up by a stated date.
6. A follow-up note template to send within 24 hours.

Keep the language warm and professional, avoid pressure tactics, and suggest no ask amount unless I gave one. Remind me that the supporter may always decline.
Output: the plan with headed sections.

Act as a development writer creating a one-page proposal for a supporter who has expressed interest in a particular part of our work.

What the supporter has told us they care about, in their words if possible: {{DONOR_INTEREST}}
The project, with confirmed costs and timeline: {{PROJECT_AND_COSTS}}
The evidence and results we can show: {{EVIDENCE}}
The gift range we have agreed to explore: {{GIFT_RANGE}}

Write the page with:
1. A headline connecting their interest to the project.
2. The problem and our approach in 80 words.
3. What the gift will fund, as a short list tied to the confirmed costs.
4. What success will look like and how we will report to them, with honest limits on what we can promise.
5. Recognition options, including remaining anonymous, offered neutrally.
6. A next step and named contact.

Rules: use only the facts above. Do not invent outcomes, match offers, naming opportunities, deadlines or financial detail. Where information is missing write [CONFIRM]. Do not suggest that giving brings tax advantages. Avoid hype, and keep to 350 words so it fits on a single page.
Output: the proposal page, then a list of items to confirm with colleagues before it goes out.

You are a corporate partnerships manager at a small charity writing to a company contact we may or may not know.

The company and what we know about its stated community or CSR priorities (from its own pages, pasted): {{COMPANY_AND_PRIORITIES}}
What we could offer (volunteering, employee giving, event, cause-related project) and what it would cost us: {{WHAT_WE_OFFER}}
Any relationship or connection we already have: {{CONNECTION}}

Write:
1. A first email of 130 to 170 words that links their stated priorities to a specific, modest idea, and asks only for a short conversation.
2. Two subject lines, plain not clickbait.
3. A follow-up email for 10 days later that adds one new piece of value, such as a short update from us.
4. A three-question list for the first call that checks mutual fit.
5. A brief on risks to check on our side: values alignment, reputational fit, claims they may want to make about our work, and conflicts with other supporters.

Rules: use only company information I pasted. Do not flatter with unverified claims. Do not promise results, audience reach or exclusivity. Any statement about what we can deliver must come from my list. For data and spam rules on cold emails, remind me to check our country's rules.
Output: the emails, subject lines, call questions and risk list.

Act as a partnerships adviser designing a menu of ways a business can work with a charity, so the conversation starts from options rather than from a bare request.

Our work and capacity (what we can deliver without straining staff): {{ORG_WORK_AND_CAPACITY}}
Business types we are approaching (local firms, regional employers, national brands): {{BUSINESS_TYPES}}
Things we do not want to do (conflicts, brands, activities): {{OUR_LIMITS}}

Create a menu with three or four tiers or types of partnership, such as employee volunteering, payroll giving, skills sharing, product donation, event sponsorship and pro bono help. For each:
1. What the partner does and what we do.
2. The benefit to the charity, stated without invented values.
3. The benefit to the business, in terms of employee engagement or community links; avoid any claim about return on investment.
4. Time and cost to us, with [ESTIMATE NEEDED] for any figure you cannot derive from my notes.
5. Safeguards, such as brand use agreements and the way beneficiaries are represented.

Then add a short note on what a written partnership agreement should cover, with the reminder that the final wording needs our trustees' or a solicitor's review.

Leave prices as [ESTIMATE NEEDED] and name no real companies.
Output: a menu table and a one-paragraph introduction suitable for a leaflet.

You are an experienced events manager for a charity with a small team and volunteers.

Event type, date, venue and expected number of guests: {{EVENT_DETAILS}}
Fundraising goal and income sources (tickets, auction, donations, sponsors) as we have currently planned them: {{INCOME_PLAN}}
Costs known so far and the budget limit: {{COSTS_AND_BUDGET}}
Volunteers and staff available: {{PEOPLE}}

Produce:
1. A countdown timeline from twelve weeks out to the day after, with owner roles.
2. A run-of-show minute by minute for the event itself, including where the ask happens and who makes it.
3. A simple income and cost table using only my numbers, with the profit calculated and clearly labeled as a forecast; show assumptions.
4. A risk and contingency list (weather, no-shows, supplier failure, health and safety).
5. A volunteer briefing outline.
6. A list of checks to make with the right authorities or insurers, such as raffle and lottery rules, alcohol and food licenses, collections permits and insurance, phrased as questions because rules differ by place.

Rules: do not invent attendance, income or sponsor numbers, and never imply an event will reach a given total. Do not state licensing law as fact; tag it [CHECK LOCAL RULES].
Output: the timeline, run-of-show, table, risks and checks.

You are a community fundraising manager supporting people who raise money for us through challenges, bake sales, sponsored events or online pages.

The event or challenge types we support: {{FUNDRAISING_ACTIVITIES}}
What we can provide: fundraising page, branded materials, a named contact, small costs we can cover: {{OUR_SUPPORT}}
What donations fund, using only costs we have confirmed: {{WHAT_DONATIONS_FUND}}

Create:
1. A welcome email of 140 to 180 words for someone who has just signed up, with three first steps.
2. A fundraiser's page template: headline, a 100-word "why I am doing this" with blanks for their own story, a progress update line and a thank-you line.
3. Five short messages the fundraiser can send friends and family, written in the fundraiser's voice, none of which pressure anyone.
4. A one-page tips sheet on sensible ways to raise money, including a plain reminder to keep to local rules on collections, raffles and safety, marked [CHECK LOCAL RULES].
5. A thank-you message to the fundraiser after the event, with a placeholder for the amount raised.

Keep the tone friendly and practical, and state no totals or what a given sum buys.
Output: the five labeled items.

Act as an events and communications officer. We have just held a fundraising event and need to thank people and report back fast.

What happened: date, venue, activities, roles of volunteers and sponsors: {{EVENT_FACTS}}
Confirmed results: amount raised, costs and anything we know is still to be confirmed: {{CONFIRMED_RESULTS}}
Who needs to hear from us (guests, sponsors, volunteers, speakers): {{AUDIENCES}}

Write:
1. A 120-word thank-you email to guests, which reports the result only once it is confirmed and otherwise says when we will share it.
2. A 90-word message to sponsors with what their support made possible, from the confirmed facts, and nothing about audience reach unless I gave a figure.
3. A 70-word volunteer thank-you with a place to mention one specific contribution.
4. A 150-word social post recap with a suggested photo line and a reminder to check permissions.
5. An internal checklist of follow-up tasks within one week: receipts and Gift Aid or tax paperwork to check with finance, returning loaned items, updating the donor database, payment of invoices.

Rules: do not state a final total or profit unless I labeled it confirmed. Do not invent quotes, attendance or highlights. Where details are missing, use [CONFIRM].
Output: the four messages and the checklist.

Impact Reports, Stories & Campaigns

Supporters want to know what happened. Build an impact report outline from the data you hold, draft annual report narrative, write a beneficiary story with consent and safety checks, draft Form 990 or annual-filing narrative for your preparer, explain your numbers in plain English, schedule a week of social posts from approved facts and plan a ninety-day campaign with targets drawn from your own history.

Act as a communications officer who prepares impact reports for supporters, written in plain English and designed to be skimmed.

Our data for the period, such as counts, outcomes, spend and feedback: {{DATA_FOR_PERIOD}}
Audience and what they care about (individual donors, trusts, corporate partners): {{AUDIENCE}}
Length and format (four-page PDF, web page, email): {{FORMAT}}

Create:
1. A page-by-page outline with a working headline for each section that states a finding, not a topic.
2. For each section, the exact numbers from my data that belong there and what each number means in a sentence.
3. The charts or visuals that would show the data honestly, with the axis and comparison to use. Advise against any chart that exaggerates.
4. A "what did not go as planned" panel, drawn from the data, because candor builds trust.
5. A table of gaps: claims a reader would expect that my data cannot support, and how to describe the limit.
6. A closing page with a specific next step for the reader.

Rules: use no figures that are not in my data. Do not say we "changed lives" or use any other unsupported superlative. Do not convert outputs into outcomes without evidence. Mark every missing item [DATA NEEDED].
Output: the outline as a list by page, then the gaps table.

You are an editor drafting the narrative parts of an annual report for a charity or nonprofit.

Our year in facts: activities, achievements, challenges, finances in summary, changes in staff and governance: {{YEAR_FACTS}}
The strategic priorities the board set for the year: {{STRATEGIC_PRIORITIES}}
Audience and requirements, including any regulatory content we must include: {{AUDIENCE_AND_REQUIREMENTS}}

Draft:
1. A chair's message of about 250 words that reflects on the year honestly and names thanks specifically.
2. A chief executive or director's review of about 350 words organized by the board's priorities, reporting progress, shortfalls and lessons.
3. A short section on plans for next year, using only plans I listed.
4. A thank-you section that names groups of supporters in general terms; mark individual names as [CONFIRM NAMES AND PERMISSION].
5. A checklist of statutory or regulator-required content for our country that I should confirm with my adviser or regulator guidance; list categories only and do not claim to state the rules.

Use the same figures wherever they appear, and avoid vague phrases such as "a record year" unless my facts show it. Where the year was difficult, say so in measured terms.
Output: the labeled sections plus the checklist.

You are a storyteller who protects the dignity and safety of the people charities write about.

Interview notes or transcript, with the person's own words: {{INTERVIEW_NOTES}}
What the person agreed to in the consent form (where it will be used, what can be identified, whether they can review it): {{CONSENT_TERMS}}
Where the story will be used: {{PLACEMENT}}

Do the following:
1. Check the consent terms against the placement and flag any mismatch, such as a story agreed for a leaflet being used in paid social advertising.
2. List details that could identify the person or put them at risk, and what to change.
3. Write a story of 250 to 300 words, in the person's voice or about them as the consent allows, using only their words and the notes. Do not alter sequence or invent feelings, quotes or outcomes.
4. Show which sentence came from which part of the notes.
5. Write a short message to send the person with the draft for approval, with a clear way to say no or ask for changes.

Rules: never fill gaps with plausible detail; if the notes are thin, write less. For children and vulnerable adults, remind me to follow our safeguarding policy and check who can give consent.
Output: consent check, risk list, story, source map, approval message.

Act as a data communications officer. I want to explain our numbers to supporters who are not statisticians, without spin.

The table or list of numbers I have (period, counts, percentages, costs): {{DATA_TABLE}}
What decision or understanding the reader should take away: {{TAKEAWAY}}
Who the reader is: {{READER}}

Create:
1. Five headline sentences, each using exactly one figure from my data with what it means and what it does not show.
2. A check that percentages are calculated from the right base; recompute any I gave and show the arithmetic.
3. Spot figures that could mislead, such as small numbers, changing definitions or missing comparison periods, and suggest honest wording.
4. A short paragraph on limits and how we collected the data.
5. Two options for a simple chart, with a recommendation and the reasons.
6. A list of questions a skeptical supporter might ask, with honest short answers drawn from the data or marked [WE NEED TO CHECK].

Rules: do not extrapolate, forecast or compare with figures I did not provide. No causal claims such as "because of us" unless my notes describe how that was established. Output: the headline sentences, the arithmetic check, the cautions and the Q&A.

Act as a social media manager for a small charity with no design team.

Facts, updates and photos we can use this week, all approved for sharing: {{APPROVED_FACTS}}
Platforms and audience: {{PLATFORMS_AND_AUDIENCE}}
One action we want people to take (donate, volunteer, attend, share): {{ACTION}}
Tone of voice notes: {{VOICE_NOTES}}

Write a week of posts, one a day, five to seven in total:
1. For each: platform, post text within sensible length, a suggested image or video idea using only content we hold, and a call to action.
2. Vary the purposes: tell, thank, show a behind-the-scenes moment, ask, answer a question, and share a fact with its source.
3. One post should be a short reply template for a negative or mistaken comment.
4. A reminder checklist before posting: permissions for images and names, accuracy, accessible text such as alt text and capitalized hashtags, and a link check.

Rules: do not invent statistics, quotes, testimonials, locations or events. If a fact lacks a source, mark [SOURCE NEEDED]. Do not post identifiable photos of children or vulnerable people without confirmed consent. No hashtags that hijack tragedies. Keep every post truthful and free of guilt.
Output: a table of posts by day and the pre-post checklist.

You are a fundraising campaign manager. Help me plan a ninety-day campaign that a small team can actually deliver.

Campaign goal and what the money or action is for: {{CAMPAIGN_GOAL}}
Audience segments and the size of the lists or followings we have: {{AUDIENCE_AND_LISTS}}
Our past results from similar activity, if any: {{PAST_RESULTS}}
Team and budget: {{TEAM_AND_BUDGET}}

Produce:
1. A campaign narrative in one paragraph and three key messages.
2. A channel plan (email, social, mail, events, partners) with the reason for each and an estimate of the hours it needs.
3. A phased timeline: prepare, launch, sustain, final push, thank and report.
4. A cautious way to set targets from my past results, with three scenarios (low, expected, high) and clear assumptions. If I gave no past results, say targets can't be set responsibly and propose how to run a small test first.
5. Weekly measures to watch and what you would change if early results are weak.
6. A plan for thanking and reporting back to everyone who responded.

Rules: no benchmarks or typical response rates from memory; use only my figures or label ranges as assumptions [ASSUMPTION]. Do not invent testimonials or partners.
Output: the plan with tables where useful.

Act as a nonprofit finance communicator preparing plain-language narrative for an annual return, such as the US Form 990 or a UK annual report to the regulator.

Country and form or filing we are preparing: {{COUNTRY_AND_FORM}}
Mission statement, exactly as adopted: {{MISSION_STATEMENT}}
This year's programs or services, with the numbers we hold (people served, sessions, spend by program) from our records: {{PROGRAM_FACTS}}
Governance and policy facts we can confirm (board size, independent members, conflict of interest process, whistleblower process): {{GOVERNANCE_FACTS}}

Write:
1. A mission description that matches my wording, and a one-paragraph description of each program or service, using only the figures supplied.
2. A short description of governance and policies, naming only those I confirmed.
3. The narrative questions this filing usually asks, marked [CONFIRM CURRENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS WITH YOUR PREPARER].
4. A table of every number used with its source in my records, so the preparer can tie it to the books.
5. Items missing from my facts that the preparer is likely to need, as questions.

Constraints: describe no accomplishments that are not in my facts, and give no legal or tax advice. A filed Form 990 is public: leave out donor names and private details. The draft is for our accountant or preparer to review, not to file as written.
Output: the narrative sections, the number table and the questions.

Volunteer Recruitment & Management

Volunteers are often the largest workforce a small charity has. Write a role description people want to apply for, adapt recruitment messages to each channel, design a first-month induction, plan thank-yous that are specific and sincere, and review feedback to find out why people leave. Policy content is always yours; the prompts leave placeholders.

Act as a volunteer manager who writes role descriptions that are clear, honest and inclusive.

The role and why it matters to our work: {{ROLE_AND_PURPOSE}}
Tasks, time commitment, location or remote arrangements: {{TASKS_AND_TIME}}
Skills needed and training we provide: {{SKILLS_AND_TRAINING}}
Checks or requirements, such as background checks and induction: {{REQUIREMENTS}}

Write a role description with:
1. A title that describes the work in plain language.
2. A two-sentence summary of what the volunteer will do and the difference it makes, without claiming specific results.
3. What you will do, as a short list of tasks.
4. What you need, separating essentials from nice-to-haves, and noting where we can adapt.
5. What you will get: support, training, expenses covered if I stated so, and a named supervisor.
6. How to apply and what happens next, with a realistic timeline.
7. An access and inclusion statement of one or two sentences that offers adjustments without promising what we have not confirmed.

Avoid jargon and gendered or age-coded wording, and write [CONFIRM] where I gave no detail. Remind me to check our volunteer policy and screening duties for roles with vulnerable people.
Output: the role description at about 300 words.

You are a volunteer recruiter for a small nonprofit.

The role and the people we are looking for: {{ROLE_AND_PEOPLE}}
Channels (our email list, social, noticeboards, local groups, university or employer schemes): {{CHANNELS}}
The real benefits and expectations, as we can truthfully state them: {{BENEFITS_AND_EXPECTATIONS}}
Contact and next step: {{HOW_TO_APPLY}}

Write recruitment messages for each channel I listed:
1. A short social post of up to 280 characters plus a longer version.
2. An email to our supporters of 120 words.
3. A flyer or noticeboard text of 60 words.
4. A message to a local group leader or employer volunteering coordinator that makes it easy to forward.
5. A one-sentence answer to "what's in it for me?" which is true and not inflated.
6. An FAQ of five questions a potential volunteer asks (time, training, safety, experience needed, canceling), answering from my notes and marking missing answers [CONFIRM].

Keep the tone welcoming and specific, and promise no job or qualification unless I stated one. Remind me to check data protection and safeguarding steps in the application process.
Output: labeled messages by channel.

Act as a volunteer coordinator designing a welcoming onboarding program.

Role and setting: {{ROLE_AND_SETTING}}
Policies and information every volunteer must know (safeguarding, health and safety, data protection, confidentiality): {{REQUIRED_POLICIES}}
Who can support new volunteers and how much time they have: {{SUPPORT_AVAILABLE}}

Create:
1. A pre-start message that sets expectations and answers the practical questions.
2. A first-day agenda of two to three hours that teaches essentials without overwhelming.
3. A buddy or shadowing plan across the first four weeks, with weekly goals.
4. A short quiz of eight questions to confirm key policy points, based only on the policies I listed, with answers.
5. Check-in conversations at week one and week four with five questions each.
6. A list of paperwork and records to keep, with a reminder to check retention rules.
7. A "when to say no or ask for help" card for volunteers.

Refer to my policy list and write [INSERT OUR POLICY WORDING] where policy detail is needed. Keep the tone friendly and practical.
Output: the plan as dated steps with owners.

You are a volunteer engagement officer who knows that recognition works best when it is specific and sincere.

What our volunteers actually did this year (hours logged, tasks, events, notable contributions) from our records: {{VOLUNTEER_RECORDS}}
Our budget and constraints for recognition: {{BUDGET}}
Volunteer preferences we know about (public thanks, private notes, no fuss): {{PREFERENCES}}

Draft:
1. A group thank-you message of 150 words for the newsletter, using only facts I supplied.
2. A personal thank-you template of 60 words with places for one specific contribution.
3. Twelve low-cost recognition ideas, matched to different personalities, from handwritten notes to learning opportunities and letters of reference where appropriate.
4. A calendar for the year: when to say thank you, including the national volunteer weeks in our country, marked [CHECK DATES].
5. A short note on avoiding unfair recognition, such as always rewarding the most visible people.

Avoid "heroes" or "angels" language unless it matches our tone, and flag any gift idea that could raise tax or expense questions [CHECK WITH FINANCE].
Output: messages, ideas list and calendar.

Act as a volunteer program evaluator who looks for causes, not blame.

Data we have: survey responses, exit conversations, attendance records, notes (anonymized): {{FEEDBACK_AND_RECORDS}}
Number of volunteers and how long they typically stay, if known: {{VOLUNTEER_NUMBERS}}
Changes we are considering: {{PROPOSED_CHANGES}}

Analyze only what I pasted:
1. Identify the main themes in why volunteers stay and why they leave, with a count of how many comments support each theme.
2. Separate what we can change (onboarding, scheduling, supervision) from what we cannot (life events).
3. Point out where the data is thin and where my sample may be biased, for example only hearing from those who stayed.
4. Review my proposed changes: for each, the problem it addresses, the likely cost in staff time, and a small way to test it.
5. Recommend three actions for the next quarter and the measures to track.
6. Draft five questions for a better exit conversation.

Never identify an individual from the comments, and present uncertain interpretations as hypotheses.
Output: theme table, gaps, action plan and questions.

Board, Governance & Risk

Good governance saves time. Turn rough notes into a board paper with a clear decision, build an agenda and a chair's brief, map the skills your trustees or directors have and lack, draft a risk register for the board to challenge and produce accurate minutes with an action log. Legal and regulatory points are raised as questions for your secretary or adviser, never stated as fact.

Act as a company secretary and chief executive's aide who drafts clear board papers.

Raw notes on the issue (background, options considered, costs, risks, staff views): {{RAW_NOTES}}
The decision the board is being asked to make: {{DECISION_NEEDED}}
Board members' level of background and any constraints such as the governing document or funder conditions: {{BOARD_CONTEXT}}

Write a board paper of no more than two pages:
1. Purpose: "for decision", "for discussion" or "for information", with the exact decision in one sentence.
2. Background in 120 words.
3. Options with their advantages, disadvantages and cost, taken only from my notes.
4. Risks and mitigations.
5. Financial implications; if figures are missing, write [FINANCE TO CONFIRM].
6. Recommendation and the wording of the resolution.
7. A line on legal, regulatory or governance points the board should be aware of, listed as questions for the secretary or adviser. Do not state the law.

Use plain words, define acronyms and keep the recommendation consistent with the notes.
Output: the paper, followed by three questions the chair is likely to ask.

You are an experienced charity chair's assistant preparing for a board meeting.

Standing items and items raised since the last meeting: {{AGENDA_ITEMS}}
Papers already circulated and their purpose: {{PAPERS}}
Meeting length and any contentious issues: {{TIME_AND_ISSUES}}

Prepare:
1. An agenda with timings in minutes that gives most time to decisions and strategy, not to reports. Mark each item as for decision, discussion or noting.
2. A consent agenda suggestion for routine items, with a note to check that our governing document allows it.
3. A chair's brief for each major item: the question to ask, what a good discussion looks like, who may need drawing in, and a risk to watch.
4. A short list of conflicts-of-interest prompts to read at the start.
5. A closing checklist: decisions made, actions with owners and deadlines, next meeting date.

Where quorum, voting or notice rules matter, write [CHECK GOVERNING DOCUMENT]. Keep the agenda to one page and the brief to one page.
Output: the agenda and the chair's brief.

Act as a governance adviser helping a small board plan recruitment.

Current trustees or directors with their skills and experience (anonymized if you prefer): {{CURRENT_BOARD}}
Our strategic plan and key challenges over the next three years: {{STRATEGIC_CHALLENGES}}
Time and expectations we can honestly ask of a trustee: {{TRUSTEE_COMMITMENT}}

Do the following:
1. Build a skills matrix showing, for each skill area relevant to our plan (finance, fundraising, legal, HR, digital, service user experience, local networks and so on), who on the board has it and whether it is strong, partial or missing.
2. Identify the two or three most important gaps and the reason for each.
3. Review the board's diversity of experience and perspective, without making assumptions about individuals; suggest where we could widen outreach.
4. Draft a trustee role description and a 200-word advertisement that is honest about the time and responsibilities.
5. Draft a short interview guide of eight questions.
6. List checks and induction steps to confirm with our governing document and regulator guidance, written as questions.

Base the matrix on what I supplied and state no eligibility rules.
Output: the matrix table, the gaps, the ad, the interview guide and the checks.

You are a governance and risk adviser to a small nonprofit board.

What we do and how we are funded: {{ACTIVITIES_AND_FUNDING}}
Incidents, near misses and concerns raised in the past year: {{INCIDENTS_AND_CONCERNS}}
Existing controls, policies and insurance, as listed by us: {{EXISTING_CONTROLS}}

Create a risk register as a table with these columns: risk, category (strategic, financial, operational, people, compliance, reputational, safeguarding), cause, effect, likelihood (1 to 5), impact (1 to 5), score, existing controls, further action, owner by role, review date.
Then:
1. Add risks implied by my activities that I did not list, marking each as "suggested, please confirm".
2. Rank the top ten by score and explain the reasoning in one sentence each.
3. Highlight where the controls on my list do not match the risk.
4. Draft a one-paragraph summary for the board's annual risk review.

Scores are judgments for the board to challenge. Flag anything needing legal, insurance or regulatory review for a specialist.
Output: the table and the summary.

Act as a minute-taker producing clear, neutral minutes from my rough notes.

My notes from the meeting, however messy: {{MEETING_NOTES}}
Attendees, apologies and the type of meeting: {{ATTENDEES}}
Any decisions I know were formally voted on, with the proposer and seconder if noted: {{FORMAL_DECISIONS}}

Produce:
1. Minutes with headings for each agenda item, recording the discussion in neutral language and the decision, without attributing views to people unless my notes do.
2. A decisions list in exact wording, stating only decisions found in my notes.
3. An action log table: action, owner, deadline, status.
4. A list of anything unclear or contradictory in my notes that I must check with the chair before the minutes are issued, marked [CLARIFY].
5. A note on conflicts of interest declared, only if mentioned in my notes.

Rules: do not add decisions, votes, attendance or discussions that are not in my notes. Do not smooth over disagreement or invent consensus. Minutes are a legal and governance record, so flag anything the secretary should confirm [CHECK WITH SECRETARY OR CHAIR]. Keep language plain and concise.
Output: minutes, decisions list, action log and clarification list.

Frequently asked questions