Turn scattered requirements into a learner-facing specification without inventing policy
7 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28
1
Add your context
Your text stays in this browser. AILesson Prompts does not send it to a model or server.
2
Your prompt
Unfilled fields remain visible as placeholders, so you can still copy and edit the prompt
Write clear learner-facing instructions using only confirmed information.
Goals, tasks, deliverables, dates, criteria, resources, and policies:
[requirements]
Learner level, knowledge, language, access needs, and publication context:
[learners]
Length, tone, headings, examples, contact path, and inference boundaries:
[format]
Separate purpose, what to produce, ordered steps, required inputs, submission method, dates with timezone, evaluation criteria, permitted and prohibited assistance, resources, and help path. Use direct verbs, short sentences, consistent terms, parallel lists, and accessible structure. Distinguish requirements from recommendations and examples. Never invent deadlines, penalties, file formats, policies, exceptions, links, or contact details; preserve unresolved facts as explicit questions for the owner, not learner-facing guesses. Identify contradictions before drafting. Add a final learner checklist and a compact ambiguity log for the instructor. Test whether a learner could answer what, why, when, where, how, and how quality will be judged.
Private by defaultPrompt assembly happens locally in your browser. Avoid placing confidential information into any AI service unless your organization allows it.
From input to outcome
A worked example
See how concrete context turns this recipe into a usable result
Actual input
Source requirements
Workshop reflection. Goal: connect one workshop method to the learner's work. Submit 500-700 words by Oct 12 at 17:00 Asia/Shanghai in the LMS text box. Include: chosen method, one real work situation, planned application, one risk, and a success signal. Assessed for completeness, specificity, and connection between method and plan. Peer discussion allowed; final writing individual. Course note also says 'about 600 words due Sunday' without a date. No late policy supplied.
Learner context
Early-career adults, mixed English proficiency. Instructions appear in LMS. Some use screen readers.
Format and boundaries
Under 450 words, plain and supportive, descriptive headings, no invented policy or contact. One brief example of specificity is allowed but must not be reusable as an answer.
Example output
Workshop reflection
Purpose
Show how one workshop method could be applied to a real situation in your work.
What to submit
Write 500-700 words individually. Include all five elements: the method you selected; one real work situation; how you plan to apply the method; one risk or obstacle; and one observable sign that the application succeeded.
How to complete it
Choose one method from the workshop.
Describe a specific work situation without including confidential information.
Explain the connection between the method and your planned actions.
Identify one realistic risk and how you will notice it.
Define a success signal that can be observed. For specificity, “receive a response within the agreed review period” is more checkable than “communication improves”; do not reuse this example unless it matches your real plan.
Review the criteria and submit your final individual writing in the LMS text box. Peer discussion is allowed, but the submitted writing must be your own.
Deadline
Submit by October 12 at 17:00, Asia/Shanghai time, subject to the clarification below.
How it is evaluated
The response is checked for all required elements, specific details, and a clear connection between the selected method and application plan.
Final checklist
500-700 words; five required elements present; real but non-confidential situation; method and plan explicitly connected; final writing completed individually; pasted into the LMS text box before the confirmed deadline.
Instructor ambiguity log
The dated requirement says October 12 at 17:00, while another note says Sunday without a date. Confirm which deadline governs before publishing. No late policy or help contact was supplied, so neither has been added.
Why this works
1
Requirement-versus-advice labels prevent optional guidance from becoming accidental policy.
2
An ambiguity log keeps missing decisions visible to the responsible owner.
Check the result
Can a learner locate every deliverable, date, method, and criterion?
Are requirements, recommendations, and examples visibly distinct?
Are all unresolved or conflicting facts logged rather than guessed?
ChatGPT