AI at work without the worry.

Act as a patient, plain-English teacher. I want to build a working understanding of [topic].

Start with a two-paragraph orientation for someone with no prior knowledge. Then give me the five things a practitioner would need to know, and three common misconceptions with what is actually true.

Use Australian examples where relevant. No jargon unless you define it.

Scan publicly available Australian sources from the last 24 hours for news relevant to [portfolio area].

Give me three to five items in plain English, one sentence each. For each item, add one line on why it matters for someone working in this area.

Keep the whole brief under 300 words. Flag anything where source reliability is uncertain.

Act as [generic role, for example a frustrated community member] in a roleplay. The scenario: [generic setup with no real names, projects, or locations].

Play the role with realistic emotional range. Start the conversation. I will respond in character.

After six exchanges, pause and tell me what I handled well and two things I could have done better.

Act as a seasoned Australian Public Service media monitor. You are good at spotting what matters to [portfolio area] at [agency], and translating it for a senior audience.

Scan publicly available Australian sources from the last 24 hours. Include ministerial media releases, Hansard, Senate committee announcements, peak body statements, AAP, ABC, The Guardian, and the major state and territory newspapers.

Return a brief in three parts:
1. What happened. Three to five items, plain Australian English, to APS writing standards.
2. Why it matters for [portfolio area] at [agency]. One line of implication per item.
3. Watch items. Anything a policy officer, an EL1, or an SES Band 2 should have on their radar today and over the next 7 days.

Keep the whole brief under 400 words. Flag anything where source reliability is uncertain. If you are not sure a claim is accurate, say so, do not present it as fact.

I need a public-information briefing on [name, current role].

Using only publicly available Australian sources (official bios, speeches, Hansard, committee transcripts, media interviews from the last 24 months), give me:

1. Stated priorities and recurring themes in their public remarks.
2. Three direct quotes with dates and sources, showing how they talk about [topic area].
3. Any public views on [specific policy question].
4. A short note on stylistic tendencies (detail-oriented vs high-level, data-driven vs values-driven, formal vs plain-spoken).

Include source links. Flag anything uncertain or where sourcing is thin.

Act as a patient, plain-English teacher. I want to build a working understanding of [concept or framework, for example the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, or actuarial risk in social policy].

Teach me in these stages:
1. A two-paragraph orientation, assuming no prior knowledge.
2. The five most important things a practitioner would need to know.
3. Three common misconceptions, and what is actually true.
4. A short scenario-based question so I can test my understanding. Wait for my answer before giving feedback.

Use Australian examples where relevant. No jargon unless you define it.

Here is a short synthetic example of the kind of writing I produce: [paste 150 to 250 words of fabricated but representative text].

Act as a plain-English coach. Give me:
1. A rewritten version that meets Australian Government Style Manual plain-English standards.
2. A short list of the patterns you changed and why (for example, passive to active, bureaucratic nominalisations, hedging).
3. Three rules I can take into future writing.

Keep your tone direct and practical, not academic.

Act as [role, for example a concerned community member] in a roleplay. The scenario is:

[Brief generic setup, no real names, projects, or locations. For example: "A local resident is upset about a consultation process for a generic infrastructure project. They feel unheard and are escalating."]

Play the role with realistic emotional range. Start the conversation. I will respond in character as the [role, for example agency representative].

After six exchanges, pause and give me feedback on:
1. What I handled well.
2. What I missed or could improve.
3. Two alternative lines I could have used at key moments.

I am researching the public landscape on [policy question, for example regulation of AI in recruitment].

Scan publicly available Australian sources and return:
1. The three to five most cited positions, with who holds them.
2. Points of genuine disagreement, as opposed to surface-level framing differences.
3. Any recent (last 12 months) shifts in the debate.
4. Peak bodies, academics, or think tanks whose work on this is worth reading.

Provide source links for each point. Flag any claim you are not confident about.

I am working on [short non-sensitive description of the problem space]. Search the content I have access to across SharePoint, Teams, and email, and identify:

1. People who appear to have worked on similar problems. Return names, roles, and the documents or conversations that indicated their involvement.
2. Documents that address related questions.
3. Any relevant past decisions or precedents.

Rank results by how closely they match. Exclude anything older than three years unless foundational.

I have just picked up [project or team area]. Give me a first-day orientation using the content I have access to:

1. The shape of the territory. What are the main workstreams, documents, and decision points?
2. Key people. Who owns what? Who should I meet first?
3. Recent activity. What has happened in this area in the last 90 days?
4. Open questions. What looks unresolved or in flight?

Keep it to one page. I will follow up on specific threads.

Act as a workflow consultant looking at my activity over the last four weeks.

Do not read the content of emails or documents. Look at patterns only:
1. Where am I spending the most time?
2. What meeting patterns look inefficient? (back-to-back scheduling, no prep time, recurring meetings with low attendance).
3. What recurring threads seem to eat time without progressing?
4. Where would a different rhythm, batching, or delegation help?

Give me three changes I could make next week, in priority order.

Act as a workflow design coach. I want to do a bottleneck audit on my week.

Ask me questions to identify:
1. The three to five tasks that consistently take longer than they should.
2. For each, what makes them slow (information gathering, coordination, rework, approvals, context-switching).
3. Whether the bottleneck is in the task itself, the inputs, or the handoffs.

Once we have the picture, help me design three interventions. For each, tell me:
- What would change.
- What I would need to set up to make it work.
- Where AI tools could help, and where they could not.

Ask me one question at a time. Do not move on until I have answered.

Scan publicly available Australian sources for [portfolio area] from the last seven days and the next seven days.

Past week: three to five developments with implications for my work.
Coming week: scheduled public events (committee hearings, consultation closures, media events, legislation introductions).

Plain English, one page, bullet points.

Scan official government and reputable policy research sources in [UK, NZ, Canada, and the Netherlands] for developments on [topic] in the last 30 days.

For each jurisdiction, return: what was announced or released, the publishing body, and a one-line relevance note for an Australian policy context.

Include links. Flag anything where the source is unofficial or the translation is uncertain.