AI for Everyday Work and Prompting
Module 2 Give AI a clear brief

Aabha AI Academy · Codeless AI

You have chosen a safe, bounded task. Now you need to tell the assistant what a useful result looks like. A clear brief makes your expectations visible: what to do, who the result is for, which facts to use, what to preserve and how to present the answer.

In this module, you will write a brief for the fictional Willow Team’s workshop update, inspect the response and improve one part of the brief. You will keep both attempts so you can explain what changed.

What you will learn

By the end, you will be able to:

- Write a brief with a task, audience and purpose, source material, constraints, output format and checks.
- Separate your instructions from the material the assistant should use.
- Specify how to handle missing information without asking the assistant to guess.
- Compare two responses against the same criteria and make a focused revision.

Before you start

Complete Module 1 first, or check that you can choose a low-risk task, recognise unsafe input and compare a short response with its source. Keep the prompt you wrote in Module 1 nearby if you have it.

Use an approved ordinary text-chat assistant and a document or notebook for your work. All practice material is fictional. You do not need a paid subscription, file upload, coding tool, connected app or web search inside the assistant. Nothing in this module is sent to a real colleague.

Plan for about 75 minutes: five lessons and demonstrations, 30 minutes; guided practice, 20 minutes; independent practice, 15 minutes; self-check and review, 10 minutes. These are planning estimates rather than measured completion times.

Continue the workshop scenario

You support the fictional Willow Team preparing a community workshop. The coordinator needs to scan a short internal update and see what has progressed and what still needs confirmation.

Each source pack below is a separate practice snapshot. Use only the pack named in your current task. Do not combine it with notes from Module 1 or a different exercise.

All example responses in this module are illustrative teaching examples, not recorded live-tool results. Your wording may differ. Judge the meaning and requirements, not whether it matches the example exactly.

Lesson 1 Describe a useful result

Suggested time: 6 minutes.

A brief is a short description of the work you want done. In a chat, you can give the brief as a prompt. Its job is to communicate decisions that the assistant should not have to infer.

Start with the task, audience and purpose:

- Task: What should the assistant produce or change?
- Audience: Who will read it?
- Purpose: What should that person understand or be able to do after reading?

“Make this better” leaves all three unclear. Better for whom? Shorter, friendlier, more detailed or more accurate? A useful revision names the desired result.

Compare:

Weak request:

“Write something good about the workshop.”

Clearer request:

“Draft a short internal progress update for the workshop coordinator, so they can see completed work and unresolved items.”

The second request still needs source material and boundaries, but it already defines the job. It does not ask the assistant to run the event or make decisions for the coordinator.

Use audience information that affects the output

Useful audience detail changes the response. “The coordinator needs a quick scan before a meeting” supports short bullets and visible topic labels. The coordinator’s private personal history would not help this task and should not be included.

A role instruction such as “act as a project coordinator” can describe a perspective, but it does not supply the missing project facts or authority to make commitments. “Expert” in a prompt is not a substitute for a clear task and review.

Write the finish line first

Before using the assistant, write one sentence describing success:

“The coordinator can scan three labelled bullets, see the status of each topic, and recognise every unresolved point.”

This is more useful for checking than “the answer sounds professional.” It names observable features. You can count the bullets, look for labels and compare each status with the source.

Quick pause: Take your Module 1 prompt. Can you point to the task and intended reader? If either is missing, add a short phrase. You will build the rest of the brief next.

Lesson 2 Separate instructions from source material

Suggested time: 6 minutes.

The assistant needs to know which words describe the task and which words contain the facts for the task.

Instructions tell it what to do: “Write three bullets.” Source material gives it something to work from: “The room has been requested but not confirmed.” Background is useful when it changes the task, but extra unrelated detail can make the brief harder to follow.

Simple headings are enough. You do not need special syntax. Put your instructions first, then introduce a clearly labelled source section. For this exercise, “Source notes” and “End of source notes” make the boundary easy to see.

Worked source pack

Use these fictional notes for the examples in Lessons 2 to 5:

- W1: The invitation draft is complete. Coordinator approval is pending.
- W2: The room has been requested. Venue availability is not confirmed.
- W3: A practice session has been proposed. These notes give no session date.

An unclear mixture:

“Write a clear update invitation draft complete approval pending room requested unconfirmed tell the coordinator about the practice session no date three bullets.”

A clearer arrangement:

Task: Draft a workshop progress update.
Audience and purpose: The coordinator needs to scan progress and unresolved items.

Source notes — fictional exercise
W1: The invitation draft is complete. Coordinator approval is pending.
W2: The room has been requested. Venue availability is not confirmed.
W3: A practice session has been proposed. These notes give no session date.
End of source notes

This is a starting brief, not the finished one. It separates the job from its evidence. It still needs rules about facts, missing information and output format.

Give the relevant context again when you need it

For this module, make each saved brief self-contained: include the current source pack and all the instructions required to use it. Do not rely on “use the details from before” in a document someone may use later.

If an existing chat contains old workshop notes or many conflicting edits, starting a fresh conversation with the complete current brief can make your test easier to inspect. A fresh conversation does not prove the output is accurate; it simply avoids depending on the earlier conversational exchange. You still check the response.

Quick pause: In the starting brief above, identify the exact words that say what to produce. Then identify where the factual input begins and ends.

Lesson 3 Set boundaries and handle missing information

Suggested time: 6 minutes.

A constraint is a limit the response should respect. Good constraints protect the meaning or make the result usable.

For our workshop update, useful constraints are:

- Use only the supplied notes for facts.
- Keep pending approvals and unconfirmed details visible.
- Do not add owners, dates, reasons or promises.
- If a requested fact is absent, say that it is not provided.

“Be accurate” expresses a goal, but it does not tell the assistant what to do when a fact is missing. An explicit missing-information rule supplies that next step.

Missing does not mean negative

W3 says the notes give no session date. It supports “Date not provided.” It does not prove that nobody has ever agreed a date elsewhere. Be precise about what the source does and does not establish.

Compare these outputs:

Unsupported: “The practice session is on Friday.”

Too strong: “No date has been agreed.”

Supported: “A practice session is proposed; the date is not provided in these notes.”

The second statement might be true, but W3 does not establish it. This distinction prevents a gap in your input becoming an invented fact about the world.

Choose what happens at a gap

There are two useful responses to missing information:

1. Mark it and continue when a useful draft can still be produced. Example: “For the practice-session date, write ‘not provided’ if the notes contain no date.”
2. Ask before drafting when the missing detail is necessary to choose the task or produce the required result. Example: “If I have not named the audience, ask me who the update is for before writing it.”

In this module, the audience is supplied and a missing session date can be marked. Asking for a date before every draft would add a step without solving the exercise.

Avoid instructions that fight each other

“Include all caveats” and “use only three words” may be impossible to satisfy together. If your length target forces the loss of important meaning, allow more room or narrow the task.

Similarly, “make everything sound confirmed” conflicts with preserving pending facts. You can ask for calm, concise language while still keeping uncertainty visible.

Quick pause: Write a safer replacement for “Fill in any missing details so the update looks complete.” Check your wording against the solution later.

Lesson 4 Specify the shape and the checks

Suggested time: 6 minutes.

An output format tells the assistant how to arrange the result. A useful format makes your later review easier.

“Keep it short” is open to interpretation. “Exactly three bullets, one per source note, with no introduction” is observable. A moderate word limit can help, but you must still check it if it matters. A request for a format is not a guarantee that the response will follow it.

Our target is:

- Three bullets, one each for invitation, room and practice session.
- Each bullet starts with a topic label.
- Each bullet keeps its status and any unresolved point.
- Each bullet ends with its source label.
- The whole response stays under 70 words, with no extra introduction or conclusion.

The source labels reuse Module 1’s simple checking method. They help you locate the original note; they do not make an unsupported statement true.

Six parts of the brief

Illustration: An annotated brief shows six parts: task, audience and purpose, source, constraints, format, and checks. Each part answers a different question about the requested work.
See the accompanying annotated-brief diagram.

Text equivalent:

1. Task: Draft a progress update. What work should be done?
2. Audience and purpose: Help the coordinator scan progress and open items. Who needs it, and why?
3. Source: Fictional notes W1 to W3. What facts may be used?
4. Constraints: Keep uncertainty and do not invent missing details. What boundaries must be respected?
5. Format: Three labelled bullets under 70 words. What should the response look like?
6. Checks: Compare each statement with the notes and inspect the required format. How will the result be judged?

“Checks” has two uses. You can ask the assistant to review its draft before returning it, and you can write a checklist for your own review. The first may help catch mistakes; it does not replace the second.

When an example helps

If the format is unfamiliar, add a small structural example:

“Use this structure: Topic: progress; unresolved point. [source label]”

The placeholders show the shape without adding new workshop facts. A long unrelated sample with real dates and names could encourage accidental carry-over. Use an example only when it clarifies something the instructions leave hard to picture.

Quick pause: Which is easier to check: “make it concise” or “exactly three bullets under 70 words”? Which one still needs a separate check for meaning? The answer is in the solutions.

Lesson 5 Improve one thing at a time

Suggested time: 6 minutes.

A first attempt gives you something to inspect. Improvement works best when you name an observable issue and change the instruction most directly connected to it.

Use this small cycle:

1. Write the criteria before comparing responses.
2. Run the brief and save the response.
3. Name one mismatch between the response and those criteria.
4. Revise the relevant instruction while keeping the source and other requirements stable.
5. Compare the new response with the same criteria, including factual accuracy.

This helps you understand the change. It does not prove that one prompt will always produce the same result. One successful revision is evidence about this example, not a guarantee for every future task.

Worked before and after

Our criteria are the five format and meaning requirements from Lesson 4. The first brief specifies most of them but does not explicitly request topic labels.

Copyable first brief:

Task: Draft an internal progress update for the fictional Willow Team workshop.
Audience and purpose: The coordinator needs to scan progress and unresolved items.
Constraints: Use only the source notes. Preserve pending approvals and unconfirmed details. Do not add dates, owners, reasons or promises. For the practice-session date, write "not provided" if the notes contain no date.
Format: Exactly three bullets, one per note, under 70 words in total. End each bullet with its source label. Do not add an introduction or conclusion.
Checks: Before returning the draft, check that each statement matches its note and that the format is followed.

Source notes — fictional exercise
W1: The invitation draft is complete. Coordinator approval is pending.
W2: The room has been requested. Venue availability is not confirmed.
W3: A practice session has been proposed. These notes give no session date.
End of source notes

Illustrative first response:

- The invitation draft is complete; coordinator approval is pending. [W1]
- The room has been requested; venue availability is unconfirmed. [W2]
- A practice session is proposed; its date is not provided. [W3]

This preserves the facts and meets the written first brief. However, it lacks the topic labels we wanted for quick scanning. The mismatch comes from an unstated expectation, not from evidence that the assistant ignored an instruction.

Focused revision: replace only the Format line with:

Format: Exactly three bullets, one per note, under 70 words in total. Begin the bullets with "Invitation:", "Room:" and "Practice session:" respectively. End each bullet with its source label. Do not add an introduction or conclusion.

Keep all other lines and W1 to W3 unchanged. Save the resulting complete brief as your revised version; the replacement line alone is not a self-contained prompt.

Illustrative revised response:

- Invitation: Draft complete; coordinator approval pending. [W1]
- Room: Requested; venue availability unconfirmed. [W2]
- Practice session: Proposed; date not provided. [W3]

Compare both responses with the same checklist. Both preserve the notes and meet the length and bullet requirements. The second also has the requested topic labels.

Example change note:

“I wanted topic labels for scanning, but my first brief did not ask for them. I added the three labels to the Format line. The revised response includes them and still preserves all pending details.”

Avoid vague follow-ups such as “try harder” or “make it much better.” If you continue in the same chat, name the exact correction. Also save a complete revised brief so you can see what instructions produced the result.

Guided practice Turn a vague request into a usable brief

Suggested time: 20 minutes.

Your starting request and source pack

Vague request:

“Make a good workshop update from this.”

Fictional notes:

- G1: The sign-in sheet draft is complete. Review is pending.
- G2: Twenty chairs have been requested. The venue has not confirmed how many chairs are available.
- G3: A welcome reader is needed. These notes do not name a reader or give a deadline for assigning one.

The reader is the workshop coordinator. They need to scan three topics before a meeting and see what still needs attention. The task is a practice draft only.

Part A Write the brief

Spend about 7 minutes.

Write a complete prompt using these six headings. Replace every placeholder before running it.

Task: [What should the assistant produce?]
Audience and purpose: [Who needs the result, and why?]
Constraints: [Which facts may be used? What must be preserved? What happens when information is missing?]
Format: [Bullet count, topic labels, length and source labels.]
Checks: [What should be checked before the draft is returned?]

Source notes — fictional exercise
[Paste G1 to G3 exactly as supplied.]
End of source notes

Target requirements:

- Exactly three bullets, starting “Sign-in sheet:”, “Chairs:” and “Welcome reader:”.
- Under 80 words in total, with no introduction or conclusion.
- Use only G1 to G3; keep review and availability caveats.
- In the third bullet, state that the reader and assignment deadline are not provided.
- Include the correct source label at the end of each bullet.

Before running the brief, compare it with this list. Is any target still only in your head rather than written into the prompt?

Part B Run and review

Spend about 6 minutes.

Run your brief in an approved text chat and save the exact prompt and response. Check all five target requirements and compare every claim with G1 to G3.

Use this short review record:

Three bullets and required topic labels: met / needs correction
Under 80 words with no extra text: met / needs correction
Only source facts and preserved caveats: met / needs correction
Missing reader and assignment deadline marked: met / needs correction
Correct source labels: met / needs correction
One issue I can point to:

Do not mark a criterion “met” merely because the assistant says it checked it. Look at the response yourself.

Part C Revise and compare

Spend about 7 minutes.

Choose one observable issue. Amend the relevant line of your brief, keep the source unchanged and run the revised complete brief. Save the second response and compare it with the same five requirements.

If the first response already meets every requirement, record that honestly. Then make one explicit preference more precise, such as asking for simple sentences instead of compressed phrases. Check both outputs against the original five requirements and separately note whether the added preference was met. Do not invent an error to justify a revision.

Your change note should name the problem or added preference, quote the changed instruction and describe the observed result. If the second response still misses the target, record that and correct it before accepting the practice draft.

Offline route: write a brief, then review this supplied illustrative response against the five requirements:

“Sign-in sheet: Draft complete; review pending. [G1] Chairs: Twenty requested; availability unconfirmed. [G2] Welcome reader: Reader not provided. [G3]”

Identify the missing deadline statement and the lack of separate bullets. Choose one problem for your focused brief revision; then manually correct both problems in the final output. Label your record as an offline review. You can test both briefs in a chat tool when access is available.

Independent assignment Improve a briefing handover

Suggested time: 15 minutes.

Your new fictional source pack

- I1: The handout layout is complete. The wording has not been reviewed.
- I2: A projector has been requested. The venue has not replied.
- I3: A ten-minute welcome has been proposed. Its length has not been approved. These notes do not name a speaker.

The coordinator needs a short internal update that distinguishes progress from unresolved details. Do not use facts from W1 to W3 or G1 to G3.

Define success and make two attempts

1. Write your success checklist before prompting. It must cover all six brief components and the output requirements below.
2. Write and run a complete first brief.
3. Check the response and name one mismatch or one clearly stated added preference.
4. Revise one part of the brief and run it again with the same source pack.
5. Compare both outputs using the same original output checklist. Check an added preference separately if you introduced one.
6. Correct any remaining factual or format defect and record the final accept-or-revise decision.

Required final output:

- Exactly three bullets, starting “Handout:”, “Projector:” and “Welcome:”.
- No more than 75 words, with no introduction or conclusion.
- One bullet per source note, ending with I1, I2 or I3 in square brackets.
- Preserve the wording-review gap, missing venue reply and unapproved welcome length.
- Mark the speaker as “not provided”; do not invent a person or claim nobody has been assigned.

Save both complete briefs, both corresponding responses, the checklist, your change note and the final checked output. If a corrected final output differs from the second response, label it as your correction rather than silently replacing the saved response.

Offline route: create both briefs and use the independent reference output in the solutions as the supplied response to review. State which parts you inspected and which changes remain untested in a live assistant. Do not claim you observed a prompt improvement that you did not run.

Why this assignment matters

You are making your expectations explicit and learning from a comparison. A longer prompt is not automatically better. A useful revision addresses something observable while protecting the facts that were already correct.

Formative self-assessment rubric

Mark each criterion “met” or “needs correction.” This module is practice; it has no separate numerical pass score.

- Complete brief: Both saved versions identify the task, audience and purpose, source, constraints, format and checks. The second version is self-contained.
- Defined missing-information behaviour: The brief explains what to do when a requested fact is absent; the final output follows that rule.
- Faithful and usable output: All required fields, caveats, labels and length limits are met without invented facts or commitments.
- Focused revision: The changed instruction addresses one named mismatch or added preference; the source pack stays unchanged.
- Honest comparison: Both responses are kept and assessed against the same original criteria. Any new preference, manual correction or offline limitation is recorded separately.
- Safe completion: Only fictional input is used, no message is sent, and a human review decision is visible.

Correct any privacy or factual gap before marking the work complete. If the revision improves formatting but loses an important condition, it is not ready to accept.

Self-check Before reading the answers

Spend about 5 minutes answering, then 5 minutes reviewing the solutions.

1. What useful information is missing from “Make this better”?
2. Which is an instruction and which is source material: “Use three bullets” and “The room has been requested”?
3. The notes do not name a speaker. Why is “speaker not provided” safer than “no speaker has been assigned”?
4. When should a brief ask a question before drafting rather than mark a fact as missing?
5. A response meets your written brief but lacks labels you wanted. What should you change, and what should your change note acknowledge?
6. Why keep the source material unchanged when testing a prompt revision?
7. Does asking the assistant to check its answer remove the need for your own review?
8. Your second response is shorter but drops “approval pending.” Is it an improvement you should accept? Explain.
9. The first response already meets the criteria. Must you claim that it failed so you can practise revision?

Answers and explanations

Read after your attempt. These examples show acceptable reasoning and outputs; they are not the only correct wording.

Lesson pause answers

- Lesson 1: A useful addition identifies the intended reader and result, for example “for the workshop coordinator to scan progress and unresolved items.” Private information unrelated to the task is unnecessary.
- Lesson 2: “Draft a workshop progress update” is the task. The factual input begins after “Source notes” and ends at “End of source notes.” Headings make the boundary visible without special software.
- Lesson 3: Replace “fill in any missing details” with “If a requested detail is absent from the notes, write ‘not provided’ and do not guess.” This produces a usable draft with a visible gap.
- Lesson 4: “Exactly three bullets under 70 words” is easier to inspect than “concise.” Both still need a meaning check: meeting a word limit does not establish accuracy.

Guided practice Reference brief

Task: Draft an internal progress update for the fictional Willow Team workshop.
Audience and purpose: Help the coordinator scan progress and unresolved items before a meeting.
Constraints: Use only G1 to G3. Keep the pending review and unconfirmed chair availability clear. Do not invent people, dates, reasons or promises. In the welcome-reader bullet, explicitly mark the reader and assignment deadline as "not provided".
Format: Exactly three bullets, starting "Sign-in sheet:", "Chairs:" and "Welcome reader:" respectively. Keep the whole response under 80 words. End each bullet with its source label in square brackets. No introduction or conclusion.
Checks: Compare the draft with each note and check the required labels, missing details and format before returning it.

Source notes — fictional exercise
G1: The sign-in sheet draft is complete. Review is pending.
G2: Twenty chairs have been requested. The venue has not confirmed how many chairs are available.
G3: A welcome reader is needed. These notes do not name a reader or give a deadline for assigning one.
End of source notes

Illustrative acceptable response:

- Sign-in sheet: Draft complete; review pending. [G1]
- Chairs: Twenty requested; available quantity unconfirmed. [G2]
- Welcome reader: Needed; reader and assignment deadline not provided. [G3]

Why it works:

- G1 separates completion of a draft from completion of review.
- G2 distinguishes the number requested from the number confirmed as available.
- G3 marks both absent details and does not appoint someone or invent a deadline.
- There are three correctly labelled bullets, with no extra paragraph, well below 80 words.

Possible focused revision for the supplied offline example:

“Add this sentence to Constraints: ‘The welcome-reader bullet must include both the missing reader and the missing assignment deadline.’”

This targets the omitted deadline. The separate-bullet format also needs correction before accepting the final output. Because this is an offline example, describe the revised prompt as prepared, not proven successful.

If your live first attempt met all targets, an acceptable preference refinement is “Use simple complete sentences while keeping every other requirement.” Check whether the new response meets that preference and still preserves all facts. It may be less compact but more suitable for your reader.

Independent assignment Reference brief

Task: Draft a progress update for the fictional Willow Team workshop.
Audience and purpose: The coordinator needs to see progress and unresolved details at a glance.
Constraints: Use only I1 to I3. Preserve the unreviewed wording, missing venue reply and unapproved welcome length. Do not add facts or commitments. For the speaker, say "not provided"; do not infer whether anyone has been assigned.
Format: Exactly three bullets beginning "Handout:", "Projector:" and "Welcome:" respectively. Use no more than 75 words in total. Put the matching source label in square brackets at the end of each bullet. No introduction or conclusion.
Checks: Check every statement against the supplied notes and confirm the required format before returning the draft.

Source notes — fictional exercise
I1: The handout layout is complete. The wording has not been reviewed.
I2: A projector has been requested. The venue has not replied.
I3: A ten-minute welcome has been proposed. Its length has not been approved. These notes do not name a speaker.
End of source notes

Illustrative acceptable final output:

- Handout: Layout complete; wording not reviewed. [I1]
- Projector: Requested; venue reply pending. [I2]
- Welcome: Ten-minute length proposed but unapproved; speaker not provided. [I3]

Common errors and focused corrections:

- “Handout complete” loses the distinction between layout and wording review. Strengthen the instruction to preserve both states.
- “Projector confirmed” contradicts the absence of a venue reply. Correct the output and reinforce the source-only rule.
- “Speaker unassigned” goes beyond I3. Specify “not provided” rather than inferring assignment status.
- A single paragraph with three topics does not meet a three-bullet format. State “put each topic in a separate bullet.”

Example change note, usable only if your saved outputs actually show this issue:

“My first response described the speaker as unassigned. I revised the missing-information instruction to require ‘not provided’ and prohibit an inference about assignment. The second response uses that wording. I checked that the unapproved length, pending reply and wording-review gap remain visible.”

If this was not your result, write the change note for what you actually observed. The aim is a truthful record of your revision.

Self-check answers

1. It leaves the task, reader, purpose and meaning of “better” unclear. Specify a result you can inspect, then provide the relevant source and boundaries.
2. “Use three bullets” is an instruction. “The room has been requested” is a source fact.
3. The notes tell you what information was supplied, not everything that may have happened. Absence of a name is not proof that no assignment exists.
4. Ask when the missing detail is necessary to define or complete the task, such as an unknown audience that changes what should be written. Mark a gap when a useful draft can safely preserve it as unresolved.
5. Add explicit label requirements to the brief. Acknowledge that the original prompt omitted your expectation rather than claiming the assistant ignored it.
6. Changing both the evidence and the instruction makes it harder to understand why the output changed. A stable source lets you inspect the effect of a focused revision more clearly.
7. No. Inspect the notes and response yourself. An AI self-check is another AI output, not independent verification.
8. No. The shorter version changes the meaning by hiding an unresolved approval. Restore the caveat, even if the response needs more words.
9. No. Record that it passed. You may add and test a clearly identified preference while checking that the original requirements still hold.

Recap and next step

A clear brief makes six things visible: task, audience and purpose, source, constraints, format and checks. Missing facts need an explicit treatment. Revisions are more useful when they address a named issue and are compared against stable criteria.

Keep both briefs, both responses and your change note. They show what you asked for, what happened and why you accepted the final result.

In Module 3, Work from supplied documents, you will use this briefing method with longer material. You will learn how to summarise, extract and rewrite while preserving conditions and making important statements traceable to their source.

Further reading

The teaching and exercises are self-contained. OpenAI’s Prompt engineering best practices for ChatGPT (https://help.openai.com/en/articles/10032626-prompt-engineering-best-practices-for-chatgpt) offers optional background on clear instructions and iterative refinement. Checked on 12 October 2026. The course examples and assessment criteria are original instructional material.
