Claude vs Gemini — Which AI Should You Use?

Review the following {{language}} code for a {{project_type}} project.

Analyze it across these dimensions:

1. **Correctness**: Identify any bugs, logic errors, or unhandled edge cases
2. **Architecture**: Does this follow {{architecture_pattern}} principles? Flag violations with specific fixes
3. **Performance**: Note any O(n^2) or worse operations, unnecessary allocations, or missed caching opportunities
4. **Security**: Check for injection vulnerabilities, improper input validation, or leaked secrets
5. **Readability**: Suggest naming improvements and identify overly complex functions (>30 lines)

For each issue found:
- Severity: Critical / Warning / Suggestion
- Line reference or code snippet
- Concrete fix (show the corrected code, not just a description)

End with a summary: "X critical, Y warnings, Z suggestions" and an overall quality score out of 10.

I'm providing a {{document_type}} that is approximately {{page_count}} pages long.

Analyze the full document and produce:

1. **Executive summary** (under 200 words): The core argument or purpose, key conclusions, and who should read this
2. **Chapter/section breakdown**: For each major section, provide a 2-3 sentence summary
3. **Key data points**: Extract all statistics, figures, dates, and quantifiable claims into a table
4. **Contradictions or gaps**: Note any places where the document contradicts itself or leaves important questions unanswered
5. **Action items**: List every recommendation, next step, or call-to-action mentioned in the document
6. **Critical assessment**: What does this document do well? What does it miss? Rate the strength of evidence on a 1-5 scale

If sections are unclear or ambiguous, quote the relevant passage and explain the ambiguity rather than guessing the intent.

Write a {{content_type}} about {{topic}} for {{publication_or_context}}.

Voice and style:
- Tone: {{tone}}
- Reference style: Write like {{style_reference}} (adopt their sentence rhythm and perspective approach, not their exact phrases)
- POV: {{point_of_view}}

Structure requirements:
- Open with a specific scene, anecdote, or surprising fact — never a dictionary definition
- Each paragraph must advance the argument or narrative (no filler paragraphs)
- Include at least one counterargument and address it honestly
- End with an insight that reframes how the reader thinks about the topic

Constraints:
- Length: {{word_count}} words
- No cliches, no "In today's rapidly evolving landscape", no "It's worth noting that"
- Prefer active voice. Use passive only when the actor is genuinely unknown or irrelevant
- Vary paragraph length: mix 1-sentence paragraphs with longer ones for rhythm

Research {{topic}} and provide a comprehensive briefing for a {{audience}} audience.

Structure:
1. **TL;DR**: 3 sentences maximum
2. **Background**: Essential context (under 150 words)
3. **Current landscape**: Key players, recent developments (past {{timeframe}}), and market/field dynamics
4. **Evidence review**: Summarize the strongest evidence on each side of the key debates. For each claim, note:
   - Source type (peer-reviewed study, industry report, expert opinion, anecdotal)
   - Confidence level (high/medium/low)
   - Potential bias of the source
5. **Contrarian view**: What's the strongest argument against the mainstream position?
6. **Practical implications**: What should {{audience}} actually do with this information?
7. **Search queries**: 5 specific search terms to find primary sources (not URLs)

Mark all speculative or analytical statements with [Analysis]. Keep factual claims and interpretation clearly separated.

I need to make a decision about {{decision_topic}}.

Context: {{situation_context}}
Constraints: {{constraints}}
Stakeholders: {{stakeholders}}

Walk me through this decision using structured reasoning:

1. **Frame the decision**: What exactly am I deciding? What are the 2-4 realistic options (not strawmen)?
2. **Criteria matrix**: List the 5 most important evaluation criteria, weighted by importance (weights must sum to 100%)
3. **Analysis**: Score each option against each criterion (1-10) with a one-sentence justification per score
4. **Second-order effects**: For the top 2 options, what happens 6 months and 2 years after choosing it?
5. **Reversibility check**: Which options are easily reversible? Which create lock-in?
6. **Pre-mortem**: For the top option, imagine it failed badly. What went wrong? How likely is that failure mode?
7. **Recommendation**: Your pick, the key risk to monitor, and the trigger condition that should make me reconsider

Show your reasoning at each step. If you're uncertain about something, quantify your uncertainty rather than hedging vaguely.

Generate comprehensive API documentation for the following {{language}} code:

{{code_or_description}}

Produce documentation in this format:

**Overview**: One paragraph explaining what this API does and its primary use case

**Authentication**: How requests are authenticated (infer from the code or note "not specified")

**Endpoints/Methods** (for each):
- Method signature with types
- Description (what it does, not how)
- Parameters table: name | type | required | default | description
- Return type with example response shape
- Error cases: what can go wrong and the error format
- Example request and response (realistic data, not "foo/bar")

**Data Models**: Document all types/interfaces/schemas referenced

**Rate Limits / Constraints**: Note any limits visible in the code

**Quick Start**: A minimal working example that demonstrates the most common use case

Use present tense. Keep descriptions under 2 sentences each. If behavior is ambiguous from the code, mark it with [VERIFY] rather than guessing.

Simulate a structured debate on: {{debate_topic}}

Position A: {{position_a}}
Position B: {{position_b}}
Context: {{context}}

Format the debate as follows:

**Round 1 — Opening Statements** (200 words each)
Each side presents their strongest case with evidence.

**Round 2 — Rebuttals** (150 words each)
Each side directly addresses the other's strongest point.

**Round 3 — Cross-Examination** (3 questions each)
Each side asks pointed questions the other must answer.

**Round 4 — Closing Arguments** (100 words each)
Final appeal focusing on the single most compelling reason.

**Judge's Analysis**:
- Strongest argument from each side
- Weakest argument from each side
- What both sides missed
- Verdict: Which position has stronger evidence (and what would change your mind)

Rules: Both sides must use specific evidence, not vague appeals. No strawmanning — represent each position at its strongest.

Map the competitive landscape for {{industry_or_product_category}}.

Focus area: {{specific_segment}}
My company/product: {{my_product}} (or "hypothetical new entrant")

Produce:

1. **Market map**: Group competitors into tiers (Leaders / Challengers / Niche / Emerging). List 3-5 per tier with one-line positioning statements
2. **Feature comparison matrix**: Compare the top 5 competitors across {{num_features}} key features. Use a simple rating (Strong / Adequate / Weak / Missing)
3. **Pricing landscape**: Price ranges by tier, pricing model differences (per-seat, usage-based, flat), and where the market is heading
4. **Differentiation gaps**: What is no one doing well? Where is there room for a new approach?
5. **Moats and switching costs**: What keeps customers locked into each major player?
6. **Trend analysis**: 3 trends that will reshape this market in the next 12-18 months

Base this on publicly available information. Where you're uncertain, say "likely" or "estimated" rather than presenting guesses as facts.