Create three genuinely different registers while holding facts, authority, conditions, and requested action constant. 제공할 내용: Facts and intended message, Recipient and relationship, Channel and invariant rules. 예상 결과: Three channel-ready variants with use guidance and an invariant comparison.
1
맥락 추가
텍스트는 이 브라우저에 유지됩니다. AILesson Prompts는 이를 모델이나 서버로 보내지 않습니다.
2
프롬프트
채워지지 않은 필드는 플레이스홀더로 표시되므로 프롬프트를 복사하고 편집할 수 있습니다
Create formal, friendly, and brief versions of the same message.
Facts, decision, request, reasons, timing, conditions, unknowns, and source wording:
[message]
Recipient role, relationship, authority, locale, sensitivity, context, and prior knowledge:
[audience]
Channels/lengths, fixed facts, commitments, refusals, legal wording, confidentiality, action, and forbidden changes:
[rules]
First define the semantic invariants. Vary only greeting, formality, warmth, sentence structure, amount of context, transitions, and closing. Formal must not become colder or more legalistic than requested; friendly must not add praise, apology, flexibility, emojis, or offers that are unsupported; brief must not omit a condition, refusal, uncertainty, deadline, or response path. Preserve actors, authority, modality, scope, numbers, dates, causality, and confidentiality in all three. If the specified channels require materially different information, flag the conflict instead of pretending the versions are equivalent. Return: formal version; friendly version; brief version; best-use guidance for each; line-by-line invariant audit; rhetorical differences; and any detail too important to shorten.
기본적으로 비공개프롬프트 구성은 브라우저에서 로컬로 이루어집니다. 조직에서 허용하지 않는 한 기밀 정보를 AI 서비스에 입력하지 마세요.
입력에서 결과까지
적용 예시
구체적인 맥락이 이 레시피를 바로 사용할 수 있는 결과로 바꾸는 방법을 확인하세요
실제 입력
Facts and intended message
The team cannot add the requested analytics export to the 12 September release because scope closed on 20 August. It may be evaluated for the 10 October release after Data Governance approves the field definitions. Ask Priya to send the definitions and named data owner by 5 September. Evaluation is not a commitment to October. Existing manual CSV export remains available. Security review details are internal and must not be forwarded.
Recipient and relationship
Internal department director who submitted the request. Product manager has authority over release scope but not Data Governance approval. They know the release calendar and use both email and Teams. Relationship is constructive but the director may read soft wording as negotiable.
Channel and invariant rules
Formal: email, 130 words max. Friendly: direct Teams message, 100 words max, warm but firm, no emoji. Brief: status-thread reply, 55 words max. Keep every date, current manual alternative, governance condition, no-October-commitment, Priya action, named data owner, and confidentiality. Do not apologize, blame scope process, reopen September, promise evaluation result, or offer extra work.
The analytics export cannot be added to the 12 September release because scope closed on 20 August. It may be evaluated for the 10 October release after Data Governance approves the field definitions; evaluation does not commit the item to October.
Please ask Priya to send the definitions and name the data owner by 5 September. Until a future release is confirmed, the existing manual CSV export remains available. Security-review details are internal and must not be forwarded.
Friendly Teams: Thanks for raising the analytics export request. The 12 September scope closed on 20 August, so it cannot be added there. After Data Governance approves the field definitions, we can evaluate it for 10 October, but that is not a release commitment. Please have Priya send the definitions and named data owner by 5 September. The manual CSV export remains available. Please keep the security-review details internal.
Brief thread: Not in the 12 Sep release; scope closed 20 Aug. After Data Governance approves field definitions, we may evaluate 10 Oct—no commitment. Priya: send definitions + named data owner by 5 Sep. Manual CSV remains available. Security-review details stay internal.
Use formal for durable decision record, friendly for direct coordination, brief where the thread already supplies context. Audit: all three preserve exclusion, reasons, dates, conditional October evaluation, no commitment, Priya's two inputs, manual alternative, and confidentiality.
효과가 있는 이유
1
Defining invariants before writing prevents register changes from becoming policy or commitment changes.
2
Use guidance makes the variants operational choices rather than arbitrary rewrites.
결과 확인
Do all versions preserve actors, authority, decisions, conditions, dates, scope, uncertainty, and requested response?
Are warmth and brevity achieved without adding offers, approval, apology, urgency, or flexibility?
Does the guidance explain a real channel or relationship reason to choose each version?
안심하고 사용하세요
자주 묻는 질문
이 레시피를 언제 사용해야 하는지, 무엇을 제공해야 하는지, 그리고 어떤 부분에서 사람의 검토가 여전히 중요한지에 대한 실용적인 답변
What should I prepare before using “Write formal, friendly, and brief versions of a message”?
For “Write formal, friendly, and brief versions of a message,” prepare Facts and intended message, Recipient and relationship, and Channel and invariant rules. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.
When is the “Write formal, friendly, and brief versions of a message” result not ready to use?
The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—Three channel-ready variants with use guidance and an invariant comparison—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.
Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Write formal, friendly, and brief versions of a message”?
The published test record for “Write formal, friendly, and brief versions of a message” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.
ChatGPT
