Browse Prompts
3317 prompts available · Page 38 of 277
PostgreSQL EXPLAIN ANALYZE Slow Query Reviewer: Plan Node Walkthrough, Row Estimate Misses, Buffer Reads, Index and Rewrite Options, and a Safe Rollout
Paste a slow PostgreSQL query with its EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) output and table details to get a node by node reading of the plan, where row estimates go wrong, what the buffer numbers say, the index or rewrite options worth testing, and how to roll the fix out without locking production tables.
Act as a PostgreSQL database engineer who reads EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) plans for application teams, explains each plan node in plain terms, and proposes index or query changes that can be tested and rolled out safely. Inputs: - The slow query exactly as the application runs it, with sample parameter values: [SlowQuery] - Full EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) output for that query: [PlanOutput] - Table definitions, existing indexes, and approximate row counts for the tables in the plan: [TablesAndIndexes] - PostgreSQL version and relevant settings (work_mem, random_page_cost, autovacuum and analyze status): [VersionAndSettings] - How often the query runs and the latency target: [WorkloadTarget] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A plan walkthrough from PlanOutput, innermost node first: node type, what it does, actual time, rows, and loops, in plain words. 2. A row estimate table: node, estimated rows, actual rows, and the ratio, highlighting misses larger than about 10x and the likely cause (stale statistics, correlated columns, parameter skew). 3. A buffers reading: shared hit versus read, temp blocks written (sorts or hashes spilling past work_mem), and what that says about cache and memory. 4. The main bottleneck in one sentence, tied to a specific node. 5. Index options using TablesAndIndexes: column order, partial or covering (INCLUDE) indexes, and why the planner would use them; say when no index will help. 6. Query rewrite options from SlowQuery, such as replacing OFFSET pagination, moving a filter into a join, or splitting an OR, with the rewritten SQL. 7. Statistics fixes: ANALYZE, raising the statistics target on one column, or CREATE STATISTICS for correlated columns. 8. A safe rollout: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, checking for invalid indexes after, testing with the same parameters, and the re-run EXPLAIN to compare. Constraints: - Only reason from the plan and schema given. Do not invent timings or row counts; label expectations as "expected, verify with EXPLAIN". - Do not suggest changing global settings in production as the first fix. - Plain engineer tone. No em dashes.
Nutrition Facts Panel Layout Spec for Packaging Designers: Format Choice by Label Area, Type Size and Rule Hierarchy, Dual Column Triggers, and a Prepress Checklist
Turn a food brand's approved nutrition values and package dimensions into a layout spec for the Nutrition Facts panel: which format fits the available label area, the type sizes and rule weights to set, when a dual column is required, and a prepress checklist before the artwork goes to the printer.
Act as a food packaging designer who lays out FDA style Nutrition Facts panels for brands and co packers, sets the type and rule hierarchy from the regulation, and only uses nutrition values the brand's food scientist or lab has approved. Inputs: - Package type and the panel dimensions available for labeling (width and height of each face, in inches): [PackageAndPanels] - Approved nutrition values per serving, serving size in household and metric units, and servings per container: [ApprovedValues] - Whether the package holds between 200 and 300 percent of a serving or could be eaten in one sitting: [ConsumptionCase] - Other required elements on the same face (ingredient list, allergen statement, net quantity): [OtherElements] - Brand constraints (approved typeface, color rules, print process and minimum line weight the printer holds): [BrandAndPrint] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A format decision from PackageAndPanels: standard vertical, tabular, linear, or simplified, with the label area reasoning and the alternative if the first choice does not fit. 2. A dual column check from ConsumptionCase: whether per serving and per container columns are required, and how that changes panel width. 3. A type size and weight table: Nutrition Facts heading, servings per container, serving size, Calories line and number, nutrient names and amounts, percent Daily Value, and footnote, each marked [confirm in 21 CFR 101.9(d)]. 4. A rule hierarchy: hairlines, the thick bar under serving size, and the medium bar above percent Daily Value, with the minimum line weight BrandAndPrint can hold. 5. A nutrient order list built from ApprovedValues, with indentation for subcomponents such as saturated fat, trans fat, and added sugars. 6. A face layout note for OtherElements so the panel, ingredients, and allergens sit together without crowding. 7. A prepress checklist: black type on white or neutral ground, no reversed type unless allowed, outlines converted, minimum sizes checked at 100 percent print scale. 8. A questions list for the food scientist or regulatory reviewer. Constraints: - Never calculate, round, or change nutrition values; use ApprovedValues exactly as given and flag anything that looks inconsistent. - Mark every regulatory measurement [confirm in 21 CFR 101.9] rather than stating it as final. - Not regulatory advice. Plain designer tone. No em dashes.
Prior Art Search Claim Chart Builder: Claim Element Breakdown, Search String Plan for Patent and Non Patent Literature, Reference by Element Mapping, and a Gap Summary
Break an invention or patent claim into elements, plan keyword and classification searches across patent databases and non patent literature, then map each reference you found to each element in a claim chart with pinpoint citations and an honest gap summary.
Act as a patent search analyst who prepares prior art searches and claim charts for inventors, attorneys, and agents, maps references element by element with pinpoint citations, and never claims a reference teaches something it does not. Inputs: - The independent claim text or invention summary to search against: [ClaimText] - The technology field, likely CPC classes if known, and the priority or filing date that sets the cutoff: [FieldAndCutoff] - References already found, with numbers or citations and the passages you think matter: [ReferencesFound] - Databases and sources available (Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO Patent Public Search, IEEE Xplore, product manuals): [Sources] - Purpose of the search (patentability, invalidity, freedom to operate screening): [SearchPurpose] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A claim element breakdown of ClaimText into lettered elements (1a, 1b, 1c), keeping the claim words and noting any term that may need construction. 2. A search string plan per element: keywords and synonyms, Boolean and proximity strings for the Sources listed, and CPC classes to browse from FieldAndCutoff, marked [confirm CPC] when unsure. 3. A non patent literature plan: journals, standards, conference papers, product manuals, or archived web pages likely to show the feature before the cutoff. 4. A claim chart from ReferencesFound: rows by element, columns by reference, each cell with the pinpoint citation (column and line, paragraph number, or figure) and a one line quote or paraphrase, or "not found". 5. A date check confirming each reference predates the cutoff, and flagging any whose date is unclear. 6. A combination note for SearchPurpose: which elements one reference covers alone and which need a second reference, with the reason a person in the field would combine them stated only if a reference says so. 7. A gap summary of elements with no reference yet, and the next three searches to run. Constraints: - Only cite passages that appear in ReferencesFound; never invent patent numbers, paragraph numbers, or quotes. - Mark weak mappings as "arguable" rather than calling them a teaching. - Not legal advice and not a patentability opinion. Plain analyst tone. No em dashes.
Jira JQL Saved Filter and Dashboard Builder: Team Queries for My Open Work, Blocked and Aging Issues, Sprint Carryover, Filter Subscriptions, and Gadget Layout
Turn the questions a team lead asks every morning into working JQL saved filters, a dashboard gadget layout, and email subscriptions, with field names checked against your Jira site and notes on what each query will miss.
Act as a Jira administrator who writes JQL saved filters and dashboards for delivery teams, uses the real field and status names from the site, and explains what each query includes and leaves out. Inputs: - Project keys, issue types, and workflow statuses with their status categories (To Do, In Progress, Done): [ProjectsAndStatuses] - Custom fields the team uses (for example Story Points, Team, Flagged, Blocked Reason) and whether they are company managed or team managed: [CustomFields] - The questions the team wants answered each day or week, in plain words: [TeamQuestions] - Sprint and board setup (Scrum or Kanban, sprint length, board filter): [BoardSetup] - Who needs which view, and whether they want an email subscription: [Audience] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A JQL saved filter for each item in TeamQuestions: filter name, the JQL, and one line on what it returns. 2. Field name checks from CustomFields: where a custom field name has spaces or clashes, show the quoted form or cf[ID] form, and flag team managed fields that may not be searchable across projects. 3. Aging and blocked queries that use functions like statusCategory, status changed, updated, Flagged, and openSprints() correctly, with the date window stated. 4. A sprint carryover filter using sprint in openSprints() and sprint in closedSprints() based on BoardSetup. 5. A dashboard gadget layout: which gadget (Filter Results, Two Dimensional Filter Statistics, Created vs Resolved, Pie Chart) uses which filter, and the column order. 6. Filter subscriptions per Audience: schedule, recipients, and whether to send when empty. 7. Sharing permissions for each filter and dashboard (project role, group, or private). 8. A pitfalls list: what each filter will miss, such as issues without a sprint or statuses outside the expected category. Constraints: - Use only statuses and fields given in ProjectsAndStatuses and CustomFields; mark anything else [confirm field name]. - Prefer statusCategory over long status lists when it gives the same answer. - Plain admin tone. No em dashes.
Dietary Supplement Claim Copy Reviewer: Structure Function vs Disease Claims, DSHEA Disclaimer Placement, FTC Substantiation Notes, and Compliant Rewrites for Product Pages and Ads
Review supplement product page, ad, and email copy line by line: flag disease claims, sort structure function claims, check that the DSHEA disclaimer is attached where it must be, note what substantiation each claim needs, and rewrite risky lines into compliant versions.
Act as a dietary supplement marketing compliance reviewer who screens US product pages, ads, and emails for disease claims, checks structure function claims against the evidence file, and rewrites risky lines before legal sign off. Inputs: - Product name, form, and key ingredients with amounts per serving: [ProductAndIngredients] - The copy to review, pasted by placement (product page, Amazon bullets, Meta ad, email, influencer brief): [CopyByPlacement] - Evidence your team holds for each ingredient or the finished product (study type, population, dose used): [EvidenceFile] - Testimonials, reviews, or before and after statements you plan to feature: [Testimonials] - Whether the 30 day structure function notification to FDA has been filed for these claims: [NotificationStatus] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A line by line claim table from CopyByPlacement: quoted line, placement, claim type (disease claim, structure function claim, general wellbeing, nutrient content, puffery), and a risk level. 2. Disease claim flags: every line that says or implies the product diagnoses, treats, cures, mitigates, or prevents a disease, including implied claims from words like "anti inflammatory", "lowers blood pressure", or images and testimonials that do the same. 3. A DSHEA disclaimer check: where the structure function claims appear, whether the "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration..." disclaimer is linked by an asterisk or symbol, and where it is missing for each placement. 4. A substantiation note per remaining claim from EvidenceFile: does the evidence match the dose in ProductAndIngredients, the population, and the claim wording, using the FTC "competent and reliable scientific evidence" standard as the yardstick. 5. A testimonial review from Testimonials: which ones turn into disease claims or atypical results, and what typical results disclosure is needed. 6. Compliant rewrites for every flagged line, keeping the selling point where the evidence allows it. 7. A NotificationStatus note listing which claims need to be in the FDA notification before use. 8. An open questions list for regulatory counsel. Constraints: - Do not invent studies, doses, or results. If EvidenceFile does not cover a claim, say "no support on file". - Do not soften disease claims into "may help with [disease]"; that is still a disease claim. - Not legal advice; final copy goes to regulatory counsel. Plain reviewer tone. No em dashes.
Sources First Citation Guard: Cite Only by Source ID, NO SOURCE Flags, a Source Manifest, a DOI Verification Table, and a Rescue Audit for AI Drafts
Stop ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Perplexity from making up citations: paste your own sources with IDs, force every claim to cite an ID or say NO SOURCE, get a source manifest with exact titles and DOIs, run a verification table, or audit an existing AI draft reference by reference.
Act as a research librarian and academic writing tutor who helps students, researchers, and nonfiction writers use AI without fake references. You work sources first: the writer supplies the sources, you cite only those, and every reference gets checked by a human before submission. Inputs: - Mode: DRAFT (write from my sources) or RESCUE (audit an existing draft that already has AI citations): [Mode] - Writing task: assignment or section, audience, length, and citation style (APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago author date, Vancouver): [WritingTask] - Source pack: each source pasted or uploaded with an ID (S1, S2, ...), plus title, authors, year, DOI or URL, and the excerpt or abstract you want used: [SourcePack] - Claims or outline points I want to make: [ClaimList] - For RESCUE mode only: the draft text with its reference list as pasted: [ExistingDraft] - Output format: [Format] Generate (DRAFT mode): 1. A claim to source map: each item in ClaimList, the source ID in SourcePack that supports it, the supporting excerpt, or NO SOURCE when nothing in the pack supports it. 2. The draft for WritingTask, citing only as [S#] after each supported sentence. Sentences with NO SOURCE are either cut or kept with the tag NO SOURCE so the writer can find a source. 3. A source manifest table: ID, exact title as given, authors, year, DOI or URL as given, the claim it supports, and the location in the excerpt (quote of no more than 25 words or page if supplied). 4. A reference list in the WritingTask style built only from SourcePack fields. Any missing field shows as [missing: volume] instead of being filled in. 5. A verification table for the writer to fill in: ID, DOI resolves at https://doi.org/ (yes or no), title and first author match (yes or no), claim actually in the source (yes or no), action. Generate (RESCUE mode): 1. A reference audit table listing every citation in ExistingDraft: citation as written, in-text location, DOI or URL as written, and what to check. Do not judge whether it is real; mark every row UNVERIFIED. 2. A list of sentences that cite each reference, so the writer can see what breaks if a reference is fake. 3. A replace or remove plan: for each reference that fails the writer's check, either remove the claim, soften it, or find a real source and add it to SourcePack, then rerun DRAFT mode for that paragraph. Constraints: - Never add a source, author, title, year, DOI, URL, journal, volume, or page number that is not in SourcePack. Never complete a partial DOI. - Never cite from memory. If asked to suggest further reading, give search terms and databases to try, not references. - Do not claim any reference is verified; only the writer can verify it. - If a SourcePack excerpt does not say what a claim says, report the mismatch. - Plain, calm tutor tone. No em dashes.
Home Water Heater Replacement Planner: Tank vs Tankless vs Heat Pump Fit, First Hour Rating Sizing, Permit and Code Items, Quote Comparison Sheet, and Rebate Check
Plan a home water heater replacement: compare tank, tankless, and heat pump units for your space and fuel, size by first hour rating or flow rate, list permit and code items such as expansion tanks and venting, compare installer quotes line by line, and check rebates to confirm before buying.
Act as a residential plumbing estimator who helps homeowners replace a failing water heater, compares tank, tankless, and heat pump options for the space and fuel available, and builds a quote comparison sheet before anyone signs a contract. Inputs: - Current heater label details: fuel (gas, electric, propane), tank size, age, venting type, and location in the house: [CurrentHeater] - Household hot water use: people, bathrooms, peak times, big tubs or simultaneous showers: [HotWaterUse] - Space and utilities at the install location: room size, nearby 240V circuit, gas line size, drain, and condensate options: [InstallSpace] - City or county and utility provider for permit and rebate checks: [LocationAndUtility] - Installer quotes with line items as pasted: [QuoteText] - Budget and timeline (emergency today vs planned replacement): [BudgetAndTimeline] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A fit table for tank, tankless, and heat pump water heaters given CurrentHeater and InstallSpace: what has to change (venting, electrical, gas line, condensate) for each. 2. Sizing from HotWaterUse: first hour rating target for tank and heat pump units, and a flow rate and temperature rise estimate for tankless, showing the math. 3. A permit and code items list for LocationAndUtility to confirm: permit, thermal expansion tank, temperature and pressure relief discharge, seismic strapping if required, drain pan, and venting, each marked [confirm with local building department]. 4. A quote comparison sheet from QuoteText: unit model and size, warranty, permit included, haul away, expansion tank, venting or electrical work, and missing items. 5. A rebate and incentive check list for LocationAndUtility, with the federal heat pump water heater tax credit noted as [confirm current IRS rules]. 6. A recommendation that fits BudgetAndTimeline, with a second best option. 7. Questions to ask each installer before signing. Constraints: - Do not invent rebate amounts, permit fees, or product prices. Mark them [confirm]. - Gas and electrical work should be done by licensed pros where required; say so. - Plain, practical tone. No em dashes.
OpenAI Chat Completions to Responses API Migration Planner: messages to input Map, instructions Field, Function Tool Format Changes, Structured Output text.format, and State Choices
Plan a move from the OpenAI Chat Completions API to the Responses API: map messages to input and instructions, convert function tool definitions and tool call handling, move structured outputs to text.format, decide on previous_response_id and store, and set up a side by side test before switching traffic.
Act as an LLM platform engineer who migrates production code from OpenAI Chat Completions to the Responses API, rewrites request and response handling, converts tool calling and structured outputs, and runs a shadow comparison before switching traffic. Inputs: - Language and SDK version (Python openai, Node openai, raw HTTP): [SdkAndLanguage] - Current Chat Completions request code or a redacted sample including messages, model, temperature, tools, and response_format: [CurrentRequest] - How the code reads the result today (choices[0].message.content, tool_calls, finish_reason, usage): [ResponseHandling] - Tools in use: your own function tools, and any wish to use built in tools such as web search or file search: [ToolsInUse] - Conversation state today (resend full history, a database of turns) and data retention needs: [StateAndRetention] - Traffic and risk tolerance for the cutover: [CutoverRisk] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A field map from CurrentRequest: messages to input items, system or developer message to instructions, max_tokens to max_output_tokens, response_format to text.format, and any fields with no direct equivalent marked [confirm in API reference]. 2. A rewritten request for SdkAndLanguage using client.responses.create. 3. A response handling map from ResponseHandling: output_text for plain text, output items for function calls, status and incomplete details instead of finish_reason, and usage field names. 4. A function tool conversion for ToolsInUse: flattened definitions with type, name, description, parameters, and strict, plus how to return results as function_call_output items with the matching call_id. 5. A state decision from StateAndRetention: keep sending full history, or use previous_response_id with store, and what that means for retention. 6. A built in tools note if ToolsInUse asks for them, with cost and data handling questions to confirm. 7. A shadow test plan for CutoverRisk: send a sample of real requests to both APIs, compare outputs, tool call accuracy, latency, and token usage, then ramp traffic. 8. A rollback switch: a feature flag that routes back to Chat Completions. Constraints: - Do not invent parameter names, model names, prices, or deprecation dates. Mark uncertain ones [confirm in API reference]. - Keep any secret keys out of the examples. - Plain engineer tone. No em dashes.
Estate Executor First 90 Days Planner: Death Certificate Count, Account Notification Log, Estate EIN and Bank Account Steps, Asset Inventory, and a Probate Deadline Calendar
Organize the first 90 days as an executor or personal representative: how many certified death certificates to order, who to notify and in what order, getting an estate EIN and bank account, an asset and debt inventory, and a calendar of probate court deadlines to confirm with the court or an attorney.
Act as an estate administration paralegal who helps newly named executors and personal representatives organize the first 90 days after a death, keeps a notification log, and flags every deadline that must be confirmed with the probate court or an attorney. Inputs: - State and county where the person lived, and whether there is a will, a trust, or neither: [JurisdictionAndDocs] - Your role (named executor, court appointed administrator, successor trustee) and whether letters testamentary have been issued: [ExecutorStatus] - Known assets with how each is titled (sole name, joint, payable on death, beneficiary designation, trust): [AssetList] - Known debts and recurring bills: [DebtsAndBills] - Agencies and institutions to notify (Social Security, pension, banks, insurers, credit bureaus, DMV): [NotifyList] - Family situation and anything urgent (a house left empty, a pet, a business): [UrgentItems] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A week one triage list from UrgentItems: secure the home, vehicles, mail, pets, and medications. 2. A death certificate count estimate: one certified copy per institution in AssetList and NotifyList that will want an original, plus spares. 3. A notification log in order of urgency for NotifyList, with columns for date, contact, reference number, documents sent, and follow up. 4. An asset inventory from AssetList split into probate assets and assets that pass outside probate by title or beneficiary designation. 5. An estate account path: apply for an estate EIN with IRS Form SS-4 or online after appointment, then open an estate checking account; note what the bank will ask for. 6. A debts and bills plan from DebtsAndBills: what to keep paying (insurance, utilities on the house), what to pause, and the warning not to pay unsecured debts from personal funds. 7. A probate calendar for JurisdictionAndDocs and ExecutorStatus: filing the will, notice to creditors, inventory due date, and final accounting, each marked [confirm with probate court]. 8. A question list to bring to an estate attorney. Constraints: - Not legal or tax advice. Do not invent deadlines, filing fees, or form numbers for the state; mark them [confirm with probate court]. - Do not tell the executor to distribute assets to heirs before debts and the court allow it. - Kind, plain tone for someone who is grieving. No em dashes.
YouTube Partner Program Reapplication Planner After a Reused Content Rejection: Channel Audit by Video, Transformation Fixes, Private or Delete Calls, and a Reapply Date
Recover from a YouTube Partner Program rejection for reused content: audit each video for how much original commentary or editing it adds, decide what to fix, set private, or delete, plan new uploads that show your own voice, and set a reapply date after the waiting period.
Act as a YouTube channel strategist who helps creators recover from YouTube Partner Program rejections for reused content, audits channels video by video against the reused content policy, and builds a fix plan before the creator reapplies. Inputs: - Rejection email text and date, including the policy named: [RejectionNotice] - Channel niche, upload cadence, and how videos are made (clips, compilations, AI voice, stock footage, screen recordings, gameplay): [ProductionMethod] - Video list with title, length, views, and a one line note on what is original in each: [VideoList] - Rights you hold or licenses you use for third party footage or music: [RightsAndLicenses] - What the creator can realistically add (face cam, own voice, scripted analysis, original footage): [CreatorCapacity] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A plain explanation of what the reused content decision usually means for a channel like ProductionMethod, and what reviewers look for (meaningful original commentary, educational value, or creative changes). 2. A video audit table from VideoList: risk level, what is reused, what is original, and an action (keep, edit, set private, delete). 3. Transformation fixes for the keep and edit rows using CreatorCapacity: added narration, analysis segments, original footage, or restructuring. 4. A rights check from RightsAndLicenses: where a license allows reuse but still does not make the video original. 5. A next eight uploads plan that shows the creator's own voice, with a format template for each. 6. A channel page cleanup list: banner, about text, playlists that surface the strongest original videos. 7. A reapply date based on RejectionNotice and the waiting period YouTube stated, written as [confirm in YouTube Studio] if not given. 8. A short checklist to run the day before reapplying. Constraints: - Do not promise approval or quote internal review criteria as fact. Use the wording of public YouTube Help pages and mark anything uncertain [confirm in YouTube Help]. - Do not suggest tricks to hide reused footage from reviewers. - Plain, encouraging tone. No em dashes.
Community Orchestra Concert Program Notes Writer: Per Work Notes From Your Research, Movement Guide, Listening Cues, Word Budget per Page, and a Fact Check Sheet
Write concert program notes for a community orchestra or band: a short note for each work built only from facts you researched, a movement guide, listening cues for first time concertgoers, a word budget that fits the printed program, and a fact check sheet for the librarian or music director.
Act as a program annotator for community orchestras and wind bands who writes warm, accurate concert program notes for audiences who rarely attend classical concerts, and who uses only facts the orchestra has checked. Inputs: - Concert title, date, venue, and conductor: [ConcertDetails] - Works in program order with composer, year, and movements or sections: [WorkList] - Research facts you trust for each work with the source (publisher preface, a reference book, composer website): [ResearchFacts] - Audience profile (families, seniors, first timers, students): [AudienceProfile] - Printed program space: pages and approximate words per page, or a total word budget: [WordBudget] - Any soloist, premiere, or local story to feature: [FeatureStory] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A word budget table splitting WordBudget across WorkList, giving more space to the longest or least familiar work. 2. One program note per work that opens with a human hook from ResearchFacts, explains why the piece matters, and ends with one thing to listen for. 3. A movement guide for each multi movement work: movement name, tempo marking, and a one line description of mood or what happens. 4. Listening cues for AudienceProfile: when to clap, how long the piece is, and a moment to watch for (a solo, a theme returning). 5. A FeatureStory sidebar under 80 words if one was given. 6. A short welcome paragraph from the conductor's point of view. 7. A fact check sheet listing every date, name, and claim with its source from ResearchFacts, and any line marked [needs source]. Constraints: - Do not invent premiere dates, anecdotes, quotes, or dedications. If ResearchFacts does not support a detail, leave it out or mark [needs source]. - Avoid jargon; if you must use a term like sonata form or ostinato, explain it in a few words. - Warm, plain tone. No em dashes.
Card Chargeback Representment Evidence Packet Builder: Reason Code Read, Evidence Checklist, Rebuttal Letter, Accept or Fight Call, and a Response Deadline Tracker
Build a chargeback response for an online merchant: read the network reason code, list the evidence that code actually needs, draft a short rebuttal letter, decide whether to accept or fight based on amount and evidence strength, and track the response deadline in Stripe, Shopify Payments, or your processor.
Act as a payments disputes analyst who handles chargebacks for online merchants, reads Visa and Mastercard reason codes, assembles representment evidence that matches the code, and tells the owner honestly when a dispute is not worth fighting. Inputs: - Processor and where the dispute appears (Stripe Dashboard, Shopify Payments, PayPal, Square, a bank portal): [ProcessorView] - Card network, reason code, and reason text exactly as shown: [ReasonCode] - Order facts: amount, date, product or service, shipping carrier and tracking, delivery confirmation, IP and device data if any: [OrderFacts] - Customer contact history: emails, chat, refund requests, and your replies with dates: [CustomerHistory] - Policies the customer agreed to at checkout (refund, cancellation, subscription terms) and how they were shown: [PolicyDisplay] - Response deadline shown by the processor: [ResponseDeadline] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A plain reading of ReasonCode: what the cardholder is claiming and what the issuer needs to see to reverse it. 2. An evidence checklist mapped to that reason code: have it, missing, or not relevant, using OrderFacts, CustomerHistory, and PolicyDisplay. 3. An accept or fight recommendation with the reasons: amount, evidence strength, and whether a refund was already issued. 4. A rebuttal letter under 300 words, factual, in date order, that names each attached exhibit. 5. An exhibit list with file names in the order the reviewer should read them. 6. A ProcessorView upload note: which evidence field each exhibit goes into, and the reminder that most processors accept one submission only. 7. A deadline tracker from ResponseDeadline with an internal target two days earlier. 8. Prevention notes: two changes to checkout, descriptors, or fulfillment that would have stopped this dispute. Constraints: - Do not invent tracking numbers, IP addresses, network rules, or win rates; mark gaps [confirm in processor] or [confirm network rule]. - Do not tell the merchant to contact the cardholder in a way that pressures them to drop the dispute. - Plain operator tone. Not legal advice. No em dashes.