system
parameter to give it a role. This technique, known as role prompting, is the most powerful way to use system prompts with Claude.
The right role can turn Claude from a general assistant into your virtual domain expert!
system
parameter to set Claude’s role. Put everything else, like task-specific instructions, in the user
turn instead.system
parameter in the Messages API to set Claude’s role:
data scientist
might see different insights than a marketing strategist
for the same data. A data scientist specializing in customer insight analysis for Fortune 500 companies
might yield different results still!Legal contract analysis without role prompting
Role | Content |
---|---|
User | Analyze this software licensing agreement for potential risks: <contract> {{CONTRACT}} </contract> Focus on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership. |
Assistant | Here’s a summary of the key points in the software licensing agreement: 1. Indemnification (Section 8): - We indemnify the vendor against claims arising from our use. 2. Limitation of Liability (Section 9): - Damages capped at $500. 3. IP Ownership (Section 12): - We retain ownership of our modifications. Overall, the agreement seems standard. The indemnification and liability clauses are typical, and we maintain our IP rights. |
Legal contract analysis with role prompting
Role | Content |
---|---|
User | You are the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 tech company. We’re considering this software licensing agreement for our core data infrastructure: <contract> {{CONTRACT}} </contract> Analyze it for potential risks, focusing on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership. Give your professional opinion. |
Assistant | I’ve reviewed the software licensing agreement, and I have serious concerns that could expose our company to significant risks: 1. Indemnification (Section 8): - Critical Issue: We indemnify the vendor against “any and all claims” arising from our use. - Risk: This could hold us liable even for the vendor’s negligence or product defects. - Recommendation: Reject. Limit our indemnity to claims arising from our violation of the agreement. 2. Limitation of Liability (Section 9): - Critical Issue: Damages capped at $500, including direct damages. - Risk: Grossly inadequate. A critical failure in our data infrastructure could cost us millions in lost revenue and reputational damage. - Recommendation: Reject. Negotiate for cap at 12 months of fees for direct damages, and carve-outs for data breaches. 3. IP Ownership (Section 12): - Critical Issue: Vendor gains joint ownership of our modifications and integrations. - Risk: They could use or sell our proprietary algorithms or data insights to competitors. - Recommendation: Reject. We must retain full ownership of our work. Professional Opinion: Do not sign this agreement. It is grossly unfavorable and exposes us to unacceptable levels of risk. If the vendor refuses to renegotiate these terms, I strongly advise exploring alternative providers or accelerating our in-house solution. The potential costs of proceeding with this agreement far outweigh any short-term gains. |
Financial analysis without role prompting
Role | Content |
---|---|
User | Analyze this dataset of our Q2 financials: <data> {{FINANCIALS}} </data> Highlight key trends and recommend actions. |
Assistant | Here’s a summary of your Q2 financials: 1. Revenue: $15.2M, up 22% YoY. Enterprise client base grew 30%. 2. Gross Margin: 72%, up 3% from Q1. 3. EBITDA Margin: 18%, down 2% due to R&D investments. 4. Cash Flow: $4.1M operating, $28M in reserves. Overall, financials look strong with revenue growth and healthy margins. Increased R&D spending is impacting profitability but could pay off long-term. Maintain current course. |
Financial analysis with role prompting
Role | Content |
---|---|
User | You are the CFO of a high-growth B2B SaaS company. We’re in a board meeting discussing our Q2 financials: <data> {{FINANCIALS}} </data> Analyze key trends, flag concerns, and recommend strategic actions. Our investors want aggressive growth but are wary of our burn rate. |
Assistant | Board members, here’s my analysis of our Q2 financials: 1. Revenue ($15.2M, +22% YoY): - Insight: Enterprise growth (+30%) is outpacing overall growth. - Flag: SMB segment declined 5%. - Action: Reallocate 20% of SMB marketing budget to enterprise sales. Task product to simplify SMB onboarding. 2. Margins (Gross: 72%, +3% QoQ; EBITDA: 18%, -2% QoQ): - Insight: Infrastructure optimizations boosted gross margins. - Flag: R&D spend on AI features dented EBITDA. - Action: No change. Our AI roadmap is critical for enterprise stickiness. 3. Cash ($4.1M OCF, $28M reserves): - Insight: 15-month runway at current burn. - Flag: CAC up 20%, eroding LTV/CAC. - Action: Freeze non-essential hires. Implement sales funnel analytics to cut CAC by 15% in Q3. Strategic Stance: We’re threading the needle between growth and burn. Enterprise focus is our growth engine—invest there. But watch SMB churn; it could bleed into enterprise. Our AI bet is sound, but we must convert it to ARR by Q4, or we cut R&D by 30%. In sum: Double down on enterprise, streamline SMB, optimize sales, and monetize AI. Questions? |