The short answer
The best Claude prompts for writing follow Anthropic's own prompting guide: give Claude a clear reader and goal, wrap your notes, drafts and examples in XML tags, explain why each rule exists and, for long documents, ask for relevant quotes before the draft. The 12 prompts here cover drafting from notes, editing, voice matching and long-form work. Claude Opus 5.5 is on paid plans; the free plan uses Claude Sonnet 5.5 and allows up to five Projects.
Why Claude is a strong choice for writing, and how these prompts use it
Claude, the AI assistant made by Anthropic, is the tool many professional writers and editors reach for when the quality of the prose matters. Our Claude guide rates careful writing and editing, and judgement across long documents, as its main strengths. The 12 Claude prompts for writing on this page are built to use those strengths and to follow Anthropic's own prompting advice, which is published in its prompting best practices guide for current models including Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Three ideas from that guide shape every prompt here. First, be clear and direct: Anthropic suggests thinking of Claude as a brilliant but new employee who lacks context on your norms, so the prompts spell out the reader, the goal and the limits. Second, structure your input with XML tags such as <draft>, <notes> or <examples>, which help Claude separate your material from your instructions. Third, for long documents, put the material at the top and the question underneath, and ask Claude to pull out the relevant quotes before it writes.
On models: Claude Opus 5.5, released on 22 September 2026, is available on Pro, Max, Ultra, Team and Enterprise. The free plan uses Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Haiku 5.5, which are good enough for every prompt here, with tighter usage limits that reset every five hours and weekly.
Claude prompts for drafting from your own material
The fastest way to get writing that sounds like you is to give Claude your thinking and ask it for structure, not ideas. The first prompt tells Claude to keep every argument from your notes and write [GAP] where something is missing. That one rule is the difference between a draft you can finish in 20 minutes and a fluent essay you have to rewrite because it is no longer yours.
The source documents prompt uses the multi-document layout Anthropic recommends: each document wrapped in <document> tags with its <source>, then a request to quote first and write second. This is the most reliable way to stop Claude answering from general knowledge when you need it to stick to your material. The hard message prompt is the one people use most often in the end, because it removes the blank page from the emails we all put off.
Claude prompts for editing and rewriting
Editing is where Claude is most useful to people who already write well. Ask for the structural critique before the line edit: there is no point polishing sentences in a section that should be cut. The critique prompt asks Claude to read as a specific person, because "a sceptical CFO with five minutes" produces sharper feedback than "a reader".
The line edit prompt asks for a list of the ten most important changes with reasons. You learn far more from that list than from accepting a rewritten draft, and it keeps you in control of what changes. For quick edits, the shortening prompt protects facts, numbers and commitments, which are the things a summary most often loses.
Claude prompts for finding and keeping your voice
Anthropic's guide calls examples one of the most reliable ways to steer tone and structure, and recommends 3 to 5 varied examples wrapped in <example> tags. The style guide prompt uses three of your own pieces to produce a written description of how you write, with quotes as evidence and a list of phrases that would sound wrong.
Save that style guide once and reuse it everywhere. The best place is a Claude Project: add the style guide and your best examples to the Project's knowledge, and every chat inside it starts with them. The free plan allows up to five Projects, and the pricing page shows no such number for paid plans. Our guide on how to set up Claude Projects walks through it, and how to make AI sound like you covers voice in more depth.
Claude prompts for long-form writing
Long pieces go wrong when you ask for everything at once. The outline prompt asks for two competing structures and the weak point of each, so you choose deliberately. The section prompt then writes one section at a time and stops for feedback, which keeps a 3,000-word piece consistent and stops the middle sagging.
For anything you will share as a document, ask Claude to put the result in Claude Docs. Docs is one of Claude's artifact templates, available on every plan including Free, and it exports to Word, PDF, Markdown and Google Docs. The fact-check prompt is the last step before publishing: it lists every claim and its status, and uses web search for claims your sources do not cover. Read the linked pages yourself; Claude can still misread a source.
How to adapt these Claude writing prompts
- Name the reader and the job. "A new customer deciding whether to book a demo" gives Claude more to work with than "our audience".
- Explain the why. Anthropic's guide notes that giving the reason behind an instruction helps Claude apply it. "No bullet points, because this is read aloud in a team meeting" beats "no bullet points".
- Ask for the format you want in the format you use. Anthropic notes that the style of your prompt influences the style of the answer: if you want flowing prose without heavy formatting, write your prompt in plain paragraphs.
- Use the tags. Keep <draft>, <notes> and <examples> even when you only paste one thing. They cost nothing and reduce mix-ups between your text and your instructions.
- Edit in the same conversation. Short follow-ups such as "Keep section 2, cut the anecdote, make the ending less neat" work better than starting again.
Our prompt kits collect writing prompts like these into ready sets for different roles.
Which tool works best for writing, and why
Claude is our pick for writing and editing that needs judgement: long drafts, careful edits, voice matching and working from several source documents. Pick Pro if you write most days, because it adds Claude Opus 5.5, more usage and Research. Its catch is usage limits: long documents and Opus use your allowance faster.
ChatGPT by OpenAI is the better choice if you also need images, spreadsheets and quick web research in the same place; see ChatGPT vs Claude. Grammarly is better for polishing text inside the apps you already write in, with team style guides and brand tones on its Pro plan. For the full ranking, read the best AI for copywriting and AI for writers.
Privacy: on Claude Free, Pro, Max and Ultra, your chats can be used to train Anthropic's models unless you switch off "Help improve our AI models" in Settings, Privacy. Team and Enterprise are not used for training by default. For unpublished manuscripts or client work, turn the setting off or use an incognito chat, which is not used for training.
Prompts to copy
Draft from notes without losing your ideas
<notes> [paste your rough notes, bullet points or voice memo transcript] </notes> You are an editor who turns a writer's rough notes into a first draft without adding ideas of your own. Write a [type of piece, e.g. 800-word article, internal memo, newsletter] for [reader] from the notes above. Keep every argument and example from the notes, in roughly the order I wrote them unless a different order is clearly stronger. Where the notes have a gap that the draft needs, write [GAP: what is missing] instead of filling it. Match a [tone] tone. After the draft, list any notes you left out and why.
You get: A first draft that is clearly yours, with gaps marked rather than invented
Write from source documents with quotes first
<documents> <document><source>[title or file name]</source><document_content>[paste]</document_content></document> <document><source>[title]</source><document_content>[paste]</document_content></document> </documents> I need a [piece, e.g. 600-word briefing] for [reader] on [question]. Step 1: pull the quotes from the documents that are relevant to the question and put them in <quotes> tags with the source of each. Step 2: using only those quotes, write the piece. Mark each claim with the source in brackets. If the documents do not answer part of the question, say so plainly instead of answering from general knowledge.
You get: A sourced draft built from extracted quotes, with unanswered parts flagged
Write the hard message you keep putting off
I need to write a [message type, e.g. email declining a project, note giving difficult feedback, announcement of a delay] to [person and relationship]. The situation: [facts]. What I need them to understand: [key point]. What I want to happen next: [outcome]. What I must not say: [constraints, e.g. no promises on dates]. Write two versions: one direct and one warmer. Each under [number] words, starting with the main point in the first two sentences, no corporate filler, and ending with a clear next step. Then tell me in one line which sentence in each version is most likely to be misread and how to fix it.
You get: Two honest drafts of a difficult message and a warning about the riskiest line
Edit like a tough line editor
<draft> [paste draft] </draft> You are a demanding line editor at a serious publication. The piece is for [reader] and its job is to [goal]. Edit the draft for clarity and force. Cut filler, replace vague words with specific ones, break long sentences, and fix anything a careful reader would stumble on. Do not change my argument or add new claims. Return the edited text first, then a list of your ten most important changes, each with the original phrase, the new phrase and a one-line reason.
You get: A tighter draft and a short list of changes you can learn from
Get a structural critique before polishing
<draft> [paste draft] </draft> Do not rewrite anything yet. Read the draft as [specific reader, e.g. a sceptical CFO with five minutes] and tell me: 1. What you think the main point is, in one sentence. If that is not what I intended, my intended point is [point]. 2. Where you stopped being convinced and why. 3. Which section could go entirely. 4. The best paragraph and what makes it work. 5. A suggested new order of sections, as a list of headings. Be blunt. I would rather fix this now than after publishing.
You get: An honest read of structure and argument before you spend time on sentences
Shorten without losing meaning
<text> [paste text] </text> Cut this to [target, e.g. 50% of its length / 200 words] for [where it will be read]. Keep every fact, number and commitment. Remove repetition, throat-clearing openings and hedges that do not change the meaning. Keep my voice: short sentences stay short, and do not add phrases I would not use. Show the word count before and after, and list anything you removed that I might want to keep.
You get: A shorter version with every fact intact and a list of what was cut
Capture your writing voice as a style guide
<examples> <example>[paste a piece you wrote and like]</example> <example>[another]</example> <example>[a third, ideally a different format]</example> </examples> Study these three pieces of my writing. Write a style guide of about 300 words that another writer could follow to sound like me. Cover: sentence length and rhythm, how I open and close, vocabulary I use and avoid, how I use examples and numbers, humour, and formatting habits. Quote a short phrase from the examples to illustrate each point. End with a list of ten words or phrases that would sound wrong in my writing.
You get: A practical, evidence-based style guide you can save to a Project and reuse
Rewrite in your voice using the style guide
<style_guide> [paste the style guide from the previous prompt] </style_guide> <draft> [paste a draft written by you, a colleague or an AI] </draft> Rewrite the draft so it follows the style guide. Keep the content and structure. After the rewrite, list the five places where the original most clearly broke the guide and what you changed.
You get: A draft that sounds like you, plus the specific fixes so you learn your own patterns
Adapt one piece for three audiences
<original> [paste] </original> Rewrite this for three readers: 1. [Reader A, e.g. the board]: what they need is [need]; maximum [number] words. 2. [Reader B, e.g. the engineering team]: what they need is [need]; maximum [number] words. 3. [Reader C, e.g. customers]: what they need is [need]; maximum [number] words. Keep the facts identical across all three. Change emphasis, vocabulary, detail and order to fit each reader. Put each version under its own heading, and add one sentence on what you changed for that reader and why.
You get: Three tailored versions with matching facts and the reasoning for each change
Build an outline that holds up
I am writing a [type, e.g. 2,500-word guide, white paper, conference talk] on [topic] for [reader]. My main argument is [argument]. Material I have: [list notes, data, stories]. Propose two different outlines: one that builds the argument step by step and one that starts with the conclusion and backs it up. For each, give H2 headings with a one-sentence purpose, which of my materials goes where, and the weakest point a critic would attack. Recommend one outline and explain why in three sentences.
You get: Two outlines mapped to your material, with the weak point of each named
Write a long piece section by section
We are writing [piece] together using this outline: <outline> [paste outline] </outline> My style guide: <style_guide> [paste] </style_guide> Write only section [number], [heading], in about [number] words. Use these materials for it: [notes, quotes, data]. End the section with a sentence that leads naturally into the next heading. Then stop and wait for my feedback before writing the next section. Do not summarise what you wrote.
You get: One controlled section at a time, so a long piece stays consistent and editable
Fact-check and flag claims before publishing
<sources> [paste or list the sources the draft relies on] </sources> <draft> [paste final draft] </draft> Act as a fact-checker for a publication that prints corrections. List every factual claim in the draft: numbers, dates, names, quotes, product details and statements about what someone said or did. Return a table with columns: claim, the exact quote from <sources> that supports or contradicts it, and status (supported, not in sources, contradicted). For every claim marked not in sources, use web search, link the page you found and say whether it confirms the claim. Treat a page older than 12 months as unconfirmed for anything that changes often, such as prices or product features. Do not edit the draft; end with the three claims you would fix first and why.
You get: A claim-by-claim checklist showing what is supported, missing or contradicted