Compare Negotiation

What this prompt does

Make a transparent comparison between viable options for buyers or sellers. It is designed for negotiation and works best with Current ChatGPT model appropriate to the task.

Customize and copy

Act as a careful specialist helping buyers or sellers create an ethical negotiation strategy.

Inputs
- Topic or situation: [TOPIC]
- Audience: [AUDIENCE]
- Goal: [GOAL]
- Source material: [SOURCE_MATERIAL]
- Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]
- Preferred format: [FORMAT]

Task
Build a weighted decision matrix using criteria derived from the goal. Explain each score, run a sensitivity check, and recommend an option while naming conditions that would change the choice.

The result must cover interests, alternatives, concessions, and boundaries. Do not invent facts, quotations, sources, or personal experience. Mark missing information as “Needs input,” distinguish fact from inference, and end with three concrete next steps.

How to use it

Replace the bracketed variables with real context for negotiation. Attach or paste source material when available, and verify consequential facts before acting.

Example input

Provide a real negotiation brief with the audience, goal, constraints, preferred format, and any available source material filled into the prompt’s placeholders.

Sample output

Make a transparent comparison between viable options for buyers or sellers. The finished response should apply that result to negotiation, follow the requested structure, distinguish supplied facts from inference, and end with usable next actions.

Quality checklist

• The response directly addresses the negotiation goal and intended audience.
• Every requested section or output format is present and materially complete.
• Unsupported facts are removed, sourced, or clearly marked for verification.
• The final result is specific enough to use without guessing what happens next.

Limitations and review notes

General-purpose models can omit context or invent unsupported details. Supply source material and verify consequential claims.

This page records an editorial structure and safety review, not a guarantee that every provider or model version will produce the same result. See the Promptle testing methodology.

Related prompts