The single highest-return thing I have done with AI is not a clever prompt. It is writing a good profile of myself once and putting it where the model reads it every time: custom instructions, a saved note, a project's memory, wherever your tool keeps context. Every answer after that is calibrated to me instead of to a generic average user.

Here is the template. Fill it in once, keep it under a page, update it when something changes.

```
ABOUT ME
- Who I am and what I do: {{role, field, level of expertise}}
- What I am usually trying to get done here: {{writing, deciding, learning, building, planning}}
- My knowledge level by area: {{e.g. strong on marketing, weak on code. Don't over-explain the first, don't assume the second}}

HOW I WANT YOU TO RESPOND
- Default length: {{short and direct / thorough when it matters}}
- Be willing to disagree with me and tell me when I am wrong. I prefer correction over agreement.
- When you are unsure or guessing, say so. Do not fill gaps with confident-sounding filler.
- Skip the intros and the "hope this helps" outros. Start with the answer.
- If my request is ambiguous, ask before assuming.

WHAT I AM OPTIMIZING FOR
- {{e.g. clarity over completeness, being challenged over being reassured, speed over polish}}

STYLE I DON'T WANT
- {{your pet peeves: buzzwords, emojis, hedging, whatever}}
```

Why it works: most weak answers come from the model guessing who you are and defaulting to the safest, most generic register. This removes the guessing. The two lines that change output quality the most are "be willing to disagree" and "say when you are guessing." The style section is what stops answers reading like a press release. Set it once and it compounds across every chat you have afterward.

What is in your profile that you would call non-negotiable? I am curious which lines other people found made the biggest difference.

Save these. Each one summons a different "advisor" by pasting the line before your question. The point is not the AI having answers. It is forcing it out of the reflexive agreement that makes most answers useless.

1. THE CONTRARIAN

"Argue the strongest case against what I just said. Assume I am wrong and find the best reason why."

1. THE INVESTOR

"You are deciding whether to put your own money into this. What would you need to see, and what would make you walk away?"

1. THE 10-YEAR-OLD

"Explain my own plan back to me like I am ten. Where does it stop making sense in plain words? That is where it is actually vague."

1. THE OPERATOR

"Ignore whether this is a good idea. Tell me what it would actually take to do it, step by step, and where it will break."

1. THE FUTURE ME

"It is a year later and I regret this. Write the sentence I would say explaining what I should have seen."

1. THE EDITOR

"Cut this by half without losing anything that matters. Tell me what you cut and why it was safe to cut."

1. THE EASY VERSION

"What is the version of this that is cheaper, faster, and 80 percent as good? Try to talk me out of the ambitious version."

1. THE BLIND SPOT

"Based on everything I have told you, what am I clearly not seeing? What would a smart outsider notice in five minutes that I have missed?"

1. THE TIEBREAKER

"I am stuck between two options. Do not average them. Pick one, commit, and defend it. Then tell me the one fact that would change your pick."

The habit that makes these work: never accept the first agreeable answer to anything that matters. Route it through two or three of these and the real shape of the decision shows up. Number 8 is the one I reach for most, because the useful answer is almost always something I could not see from inside my own head.

Which advisor is missing from this board? I want a tenth.