Присоединиться бесплатно

Draft a quote or service proposal structure

Автор: AILesson9 мин на настройкуПроверено на:ChatGPTПроверено: 2026-08-28

Быстрый ответ

Organize confirmed needs, scope, deliverables, price, assumptions, exclusions, and acceptance into a reviewable offer. Укажите: Client need and authority, Service and delivery facts, Proposal rules. Ожидаемый результат: A proposal-ready structure with option arithmetic, scope controls, approval gaps, and client decisions.

1

Добавьте контекст

ваш текст остаётся в этом браузере. AILesson Prompts не отправляет его ни в модель, ни на сервер.

2

Ваш промпт

Незаполненные поля остаются видимыми как заполнители, поэтому вы всё равно можете скопировать и отредактировать промпт

Draft the structure and filled content for a quote or service proposal using only supplied facts. Do not create binding terms or prices without authority.

Source-tagged client goals, state, scope, constraints, stakeholders, criteria, budget/timeline statements, and unknowns:
[need]

Capabilities, deliverables, method, roles, dependencies, effort/rates, expenses, taxes, schedule, risks, terms, and proof:
[service]

Currency, validity, pricing authority, legal review, payment, change control, confidentiality, IP, acceptance, format, and prohibited claims:
[rules]

Separate confirmed requirement, supplier interpretation, estimate, assumption, client responsibility, dependency, exclusion, option, and unresolved decision. Preserve who said what and do not invent budget, urgency, availability, outcome, testimonial, discount, tax treatment, legal clause, acceptance, or approval. Show price and schedule arithmetic with units; label estimates/ranges and identify what changes them. If material inputs are missing, produce a non-binding draft with decision placeholders.

Structure: executive fit; current situation and desired outcome; proposed scope; deliverables with acceptance evidence; work plan/milestones; client/supplier roles; assumptions/dependencies; exclusions; options and trade-offs; price breakdown; taxes/expenses; schedule; change control; risks; commercial/legal terms; validity; next decision/signature only if authorized. Make options genuinely different and prevent optional items from appearing included. Include scope-to-price and requirement-to-deliverable matrices, ambiguity/contradiction check, pre-send approval gates, and questions required before a reliable quote.
Попробовать в Playground
Конфиденциально по умолчаниюПромпт собирается локально в вашем браузере. Не вводите конфиденциальную информацию в сервисы ИИ, если ваша организация этого не разрешает.

От исходных данных к результату

Разобранный пример

Посмотрите, как конкретный контекст превращает этот рецепт в полезный результат

Реальный ввод

Client need and authority
Client email C1: a 12-person charity wants its monthly donor CSVs from three sources standardized before board reporting; goal is fewer manual category fixes and a documented process. They ask for a fixed-price option and delivery by 30 Sep 2026, but no budget stated. Operations manager recommends; director signs. Confirmed inputs: three sample exports after NDA, current category list, one 90-minute staff workshop. Unknown: row volumes, historical edge cases, whether source formats change, accessibility requirements, and who approves final definitions.
Service and delivery facts
Supplier can deliver discovery/schema workshop, canonical data dictionary, mapping for three current sample CSV formats, validation checklist, two review rounds, 90-minute remote training, and handover guide. No software implementation or ongoing monthly processing. Estimate: discovery 6h, dictionary/mapping 18-24h, checklist/tests 8-12h, training/guide 6h, PM/review 6h. Approved rate £85/h; fixed-price risk buffer up to 15% requires director approval. No travel. Earliest start 7 Sep if NDA/data by 4 Sep. Similar anonymized process artifact may be referenced, but no outcome guarantee.
Proposal rules
GBP, prices exclude VAT; VAT applicability must be confirmed by finance. Quote valid 14 days after issue. 40% start/60% acceptance is a proposed term requiring legal/finance review. IP/confidentiality use standard contract, not draft new clauses. Changes require written estimate and client approval. Acceptance evidence must be observable. Supplier director approves fixed price; legal reviews terms. Proposal PDF, no fake signature.

Пример вывода

Status: non-binding draft pending data-volume/edge-case discovery, definition approver, accessibility needs, VAT, fixed-price director approval, and legal/finance terms review.

Proposed outcome: a documented, repeatable standardization process for the three supplied current CSV formats; no guaranteed reduction or ongoing processing. Deliverables/acceptance: D1 approved canonical dictionary—each supplied field/category has definition, owner/approval status; D2 three mappings—representative samples transform to agreed canonical fields with exceptions logged; D3 validation checklist/test pack—normal, blank, unknown-label, duplicate and format-change cases have expected results; D4 training/guide—90-minute session delivered, guide covers run/review/escalation; two review rounds included. Client supplies NDA, samples, current list, representative edge cases, approver, and timely feedback.

Estimated time: 6 + 18-24 + 8-12 + 6 + 6 = 44-54h. Time-and-materials option: £3,740-£4,590 excluding VAT (44×85; 54×85), billed only under approved terms. Fixed-price calculation cannot be final until buffer chosen/approved: range before buffer £3,740-£4,590; a 15% maximum would be £4,301-£5,278.50, not a quoted price. Supplier director must set one figure after discovery.

Schedule assumption: NDA, three representative exports, category list, approver, and accessibility needs by 4 Sep; start 7 Sep; discovery week 1; draft mapping/checklist week 2; review/training/handover by 30 Sep. Late inputs or changed source formats trigger written change estimate, not silent compression. Exclusions: software build, API, ongoing runs, additional formats, data correction decisions, travel.

Options: A T&M range retains uncertainty; B fixed price only after a paid/approved discovery gate; C smaller phase delivers dictionary plus one-source mapping, with other mappings separately priced. Payment 40/60 is proposed, not approved. Use standard contract for IP/confidentiality. Pre-send gates: client questions, finance VAT, director pricing, legal terms, date capacity, PDF accessibility. No signature block until authorized.

Почему это работает

  1. 1

    Separating assumptions and client responsibilities prevents an attractive total from hiding the conditions needed to deliver

  2. 2

    Requirement-to-deliverable mapping makes scope, acceptance, and price changes reviewable

Проверьте результат

  • Can every deliverable and price line be traced to a confirmed requirement or labeled option

  • Are estimates, assumptions, dependencies, exclusions, taxes, expenses, and client responsibilities visible

  • Are legal/commercial terms and acceptance represented only within supplied authority

Используйте уверенно

Часто задаваемые вопросы

Практические ответы о том, когда использовать этот рецепт, что нужно предоставить и где по-прежнему важна проверка человеком

What should I prepare before using “Draft a quote or service proposal structure”?

For “Draft a quote or service proposal structure,” prepare Client need and authority, Service and delivery facts, and Proposal 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 “Draft a quote or service proposal structure” result not ready to use?

The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A proposal-ready structure with option arithmetic, scope controls, approval gaps, and client decisions—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 “Draft a quote or service proposal structure”?

The published test record for “Draft a quote or service proposal structure” 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.

Другие способы изучения

Где этот рецепт применим

Текстовые промтыЗакупки и управление поставщикамиОперационная деятельность малого бизнеса

Продолжайте работу

AILesson · Рекомендуемые курсы

ваш следующий шаг: примените ИИ на практике

Перейдите от понимания ИИ к выполнению задач. Практикуйтесь в составлении запросов, проверке и улучшении результатов с помощью интерактивных уроков для работы и повседневной жизни.

Просмотреть все курсы
Обложка курса «ИИ для начинающих»

15 интерактивных уроков

ИИ для начинающих

Начните полезную беседу с ИИ, улучшите ответ, проверьте важное и поймите, когда следующий шаг нужно сделать вам.

Просмотреть этот курс
Обложка курса «Основы ChatGPT»

10 интерактивных уроков

Основы ChatGPT

Освойте ChatGPT на трёх практических рабочих процессах: проведите первую беседу, поработайте с файлом, а затем перенесите проверенный план в новую беседу с помощью проектов.

Просмотреть этот курс
Обложка курса «Как работает генеративный ИИ»

7 интерактивных уроков

Как работает генеративный ИИ

Разберитесь, как распространённые ИИ-чаты изучают закономерности языка, используют текущие сообщения, формируют ответы и подключают источники и инструменты.

Просмотреть этот курс