Multi-perspective prompting

Have Claude play devil's advocate, editor, and advisor on the same topic

Breaking out of the single-perspective trap

By default, when you ask Claude for advice or analysis, it gives you one perspective — typically the most balanced, reasonable one. But many decisions benefit from hearing multiple viewpoints: the skeptic, the client’s perspective, the devil’s advocate, the critical editor.

You can explicitly assign Claude different roles within the same conversation to stress-test ideas, improve writing, and surface blind spots.

The devil’s advocate

I've decided to [decision]. I feel good about it. Now I need you to argue the strongest possible case AGAINST this decision. Be genuinely critical — don't soften it. I'll use your arguments to stress-test my reasoning.

Decision: [describe it]

The client’s perspective

Read this proposal as if you are the client — [describe client: type of business, owner profile, technical level, concerns].

What questions would you have? What would make you nervous? What's unclear? What's missing that you'd need to feel confident enough to sign?

[paste proposal]

The editor

You are a ruthless but constructive editor. Your job is to make this piece of writing better, not nicer.

Read this [email/proposal/brief] and tell me:
1. Where does it lose the reader?
2. What's redundant or could be cut?
3. Where is the language weak or vague?
4. What's the single most important thing to fix?

Do NOT rewrite it yet — just diagnose it.

[paste writing]

Running multiple perspectives in sequence

I want three perspectives on this plan, one at a time:
1. First, the enthusiastic supporter — strongest case FOR it
2. Then, the skeptic — strongest case AGAINST it
3. Finally, the pragmatist — what's the actual smart path?

Plan: [describe it]
Start with the supporter.