Tell it your deadline, daily hours, weak topics and when your brain works best — it builds a day-by-day plan that puts hard material in your high-energy slots, schedules the practice exam days before the deadline, and keeps the last day review-only.
--- MY CONTEXT (fill this in) ---
What I'm preparing for:
[e.g., "Thermodynamics final exam", "thesis defense"]
Exam or deadline date: [e.g., "April 28", "in 10 days"]
Days I have: [e.g., "7 days"]
Hours I can study per day:
[e.g., "2 hours on weekdays, 4 hours on weekends"]
My weakest topics: [list them]
My strongest topics (review lightly, don't waste time): [list them]
Energy pattern: [e.g., "I focus best in the morning", "I'm a night owl"]
--- BUILD THE SCHEDULE ---
Structure the plan day by day. For each day:
1. Date and time block (match my available hours above).
2. Topic for that session — pull from my weakest topics first, then from sources I've underutilized.
3. Specific action — which section to review, which flashcards to practice.
4. Expected outcome — what I should be able to do by the end of that session.
Rules:
- Put the hardest topics in my highest-energy slots.
- Schedule a practice exam 2-3 days before the deadline, not the day before.
- Schedule a teach-back session the day before the deadline.
- Build in one rest block every 3 days. Burnout kills retention.
- The last day before the deadline is review only, not new material.
End with a one-paragraph summary of what I will be able to do after completing the schedule.
Everything compressed to one page of what exams actually reward: key definitions, formulas, dates, and the three or four ideas everything else depends on — each item cited.
Condense all of these sources into a single one-page cheat sheet of only the highest-yield material for my [subject] exam: key definitions, formulas, dates, and the three or four ideas everything else depends on. Cut anything a typical exam would not reward. Cite the source for each item.
You describe how your professor writes exams — question mix, favourite phrasings, emphasised topics, time pressure — and it generates a full practice paper in that exact style, with an answer key and flags on what to revise.
Generate a practice exam from my course materials, matching my professor's style.
--- MY PROFESSOR'S STYLE (fill this in) ---
Question types I expect:
[e.g., "60% calculation, 30% short answer, 10% derivations"]
Favorite phrasings my professor uses:
[e.g., "calculate", "derive", "explain why", "compare and contrast"]
Topics my professor emphasizes in lectures: [list them]
Topics in the textbook my professor barely covers: [list them]
Difficulty and time pressure:
[e.g., "2-hour exam, 20 questions, partial credit given"]
Special rules: [e.g., "open book", "formula sheet allowed"]
--- GENERATE THE EXAM ---
Now generate questions using new content from my textbook and notes.
Structure:
- Match the question type mix above.
- Use my professor's phrasings word-for-word where relevant.
- Weight the questions toward emphasized topics, not textbook-only topics.
- Answer key at the end with full explanations.
- Mark high-priority topics (the ones my professor emphasizes).
- Flag any topic that I should spend more time on based on difficulty and frequency.
A strict but fair examiner: one question at a time, grades each answer out of 5, tells you what a full-mark answer would have added, then asks a harder follow-up. It will not move on until you answer.
Act as a strict but fair oral examiner for my [subject] exam. Ask me one question at a time based only on these sources. After each answer, grade it out of 5, tell me what a full-mark answer would have added, and then ask a harder follow-up. Do not move on until I have answered. Begin.
Upload several past papers and it maps which topics and question types recur versus rotate, then predicts this year's eight most likely questions with model-answer outlines.
Here are several past exam papers for [subject]. Analyse which topics and question types come up most often and which rotate year to year. Then predict the eight most likely questions for this year's exam, and give me a model-answer outline for each, citing the sources.
For essay-based exams. Writes a question in your exam's style, lets you answer under time pressure, then marks it against a rubric built from your sources — argument, evidence, coverage — instead of vague encouragement.
I am practising for an essay-based exam on [subject]. Questions are typically [describe format: "discuss" essays / compare-and-contrast / case analysis], answered in about [minutes] minutes.
1. Write ONE exam question in that style, answerable entirely from my sources. Not a softball — the kind that separates a 2:1 from a first.
2. Before I write, tell me only: how many marks it would carry and how many distinct points a full answer needs. Nothing else — no plan, no hints.
3. Wait for my answer.
4. Mark it against a rubric you build from the sources:
- Argument: is there a thesis, or just topic coverage?
- Evidence: which claims cite source material, which are unsupported? Page-reference what I SHOULD have cited.
- Coverage: which of the expected points did I hit, which did I miss, and where in the sources the missing ones live.
- Precision: terms used wrongly or loosely.
5. Give a mark band, the single change that would most raise it, and then a model answer outline — outline, not full prose, so I rewrite it myself.
One question at a time, easy to hard, and it will not show the answer until you commit to one — the forced-retrieval loop that actually builds memory, unlike rereading.
Quiz me on these sources for my [subject] exam. Ask me one question at a time, starting easy and getting harder. Do not give me the answer until I respond. After each of my answers, tell me if I am right, correct what I missed, and cite the source. Keep going until I say stop.
Not just definition cards: cause-effect, comparison tables and applied-scenario cards, weighted toward what your professor is likely to test — repeated material, bold terms, summary sections.
Turn the key content of my sources into flashcards for exam prep.
Mix these 4 card types (not just definitions):
1. Definition cards (5 cards):
Front: term. Back: definition + one real-world example.
2. Cause-effect cards (8 cards):
Front: "What happens when [X]?"
Back: the effect + why it happens.
3. Comparison cards (6 cards):
Front: "How is [A] different from [B]?"
Back: 3 key differences in a table format.
4. Application cards (6 cards):
Front: a real scenario or problem.
Back: which concept from my source applies + how to solve it.
Focus on material my professor is most likely to test — anything repeated across sources, anything in bold in my textbook, anything that shows up in the summary sections.
Cite the source and page for each card.
For maths, physics, chemistry, economics — subjects you pass by solving, not by rereading. Generates problems in the style of your sources' examples and grades your attempt step by step, catching where the method went wrong, not just the final number.
This is a problem-solving subject. I need drill, not summaries.
From the worked examples and exercises in my sources:
1. Write one problem in the same style and difficulty as [chapter/topic], but with different numbers and setup — not one copied from the sources. Say which worked example it is modelled on, with page reference.
2. Wait for my attempt. Do not show any solution yet.
3. When I answer: check my work STEP BY STEP against the method in the sources. Tell me the first step where I went wrong and what the source's method says at that point — do not just mark the final answer.
4. If I was right, make the next problem one notch harder. If I was wrong, make the next one isolate exactly the step I fumbled.
5. Every 5 problems, list which steps I keep getting wrong, citing the source sections I should reread.
Never accept a correct final answer with wrong working as correct. The exam marks the method.
Law, medicine, accounting — subjects where a paraphrased definition loses marks. Extracts every term your sources define, quotes the definition verbatim with its page, then drills you and diffs your answer against the source wording word by word.
In this subject, definitions must be reproduced precisely — paraphrase costs marks.
Step 1 — Extract every formally defined term from my sources. For each: the term, the definition QUOTED VERBATIM (no paraphrase, no tidying), and the source with page reference. If two sources define the same term differently, show both and flag the difference.
Step 2 — Tell me which 10 are most likely to be asked, judged by how much the sources build on them.
Step 3 — Drill me: give me a term, wait for my definition, then show the exact source wording next to what I wrote and point out every meaningful difference — a dropped condition, a softened "must" to "should", a missing exception. Cosmetic word-order differences don't count; changed meaning does.
Keep score across the session and finish with the list of terms I still get wrong.
Exam questions combine topics for the harder marks. This shows how two topics connect across your sources and gives three linking questions with an approach for each.
Show me how [topic A] connects to [topic B] across these sources. Exam questions often combine topics for the harder marks. Give me three questions that link the two, and a short approach for answering each.
Reads your notes against the sources and ranks your five weakest topics with evidence — sparse coverage, vague statements, skipped prerequisites — plus what to review first and a self-check question for each.
--- MY CONTEXT (fill this in) ---
Subject I'm studying: [e.g., "Thermodynamics"]
What I'm preparing for: [e.g., "final exam", "general mastery"]
Topics I already know well (skip these): [list them]
My available time: [e.g., "5 hours this week"]
--- WEAKNESS SIGNALS TO USE ---
Use these signals from my notes to judge weakness:
1. Topics my notes barely cover compared to the source.
2. Topics where my notes have errors, vague statements, or question marks.
3. Topics that appear often in the source but I only wrote one or two lines about.
4. Topics connected to concepts I skipped — if I don't understand the prerequisite, I probably don't understand what builds on it.
5. Topics with specific techniques, formulas, or examples — these are the most common weak points when notes are sparse.
For each of the 5 weakest topics, give me:
- Topic name and where it lives in my sources.
- Why I'm probably weak there — based on specific evidence from my notes.
- What to review first — the single chapter, section, or concept to start with.
- How much time to spend — 30 min, 1 hour, 2 hours.
- A quick self-check question to know when I've actually learned it.
Rank from most weakness to least. Focus on what will hurt my grade most, not what's easiest to catch up on.
Upload your own notes next to the textbook chapter or slides, and it diffs them: what you captured wrong, what you missed entirely, and what you wrote that the sources do not support. Your notes stop being a private island of errors.
In this notebook: my own lecture notes ([name the source]) and the reference material they should match ([textbook chapter / slides]).
Compare them:
1. WRONG — statements in my notes the reference contradicts. Quote my version and the source's version side by side, with page reference. This section matters most; be blunt.
2. MISSING — things the reference treats as important (definitions, conditions, exceptions, worked examples) that my notes skip entirely. Rank by likely exam weight, not by order of appearance.
3. UNSUPPORTED — things in my notes that appear nowhere in the reference. Flag each as either "probably from the lecture itself — verify with classmates" or "possibly a misunderstanding".
4. FINE — one line confirming which parts of my notes check out, so I know what NOT to redo.
Then give me the 20-minute patch: the shortest reading list, with pages, that fixes sections 1 and 2.
Goes in the notebook's chat settings, not the chat: a tutor with the personality and teaching style you choose, who answers from your sources and always asks one follow-up to check you actually understood.
Act like [TEACHER NAME] — my [DESCRIPTION].
[TEACHER NAME] is:
- [PERSONALITY TRAIT 1, e.g., "patient when I don't understand"]
- [PERSONALITY TRAIT 2, e.g., "excited about the subject"]
- [PERSONALITY TRAIT 3, e.g., "always uses real-world examples"]
- [PERSONALITY TRAIT 4, e.g., "never makes me feel stupid for asking"]
How [TEACHER NAME] teaches:
- Explains visually when possible.
- Asks me questions back instead of just giving answers.
- Uses analogies from [FIELD OR INTEREST, e.g., "cooking", "sports", "everyday life"].
- Connects new ideas to things I already know.
- Tells me when I'm getting off track and gently pulls me back.
When I ask a question, [TEACHER NAME] does not just answer. [TEACHER NAME] also asks me one follow-up question to check if I actually understood.
Stay in character for our entire conversation. Use my sources to answer, but speak in [TEACHER NAME]'s voice.
Roles flipped: you teach, it plays the student you choose — curious beginner or skeptical professor — asks three escalating questions, corrects you against the sources and scores your understanding out of 10.
Flip our roles. You are the student. I am the teacher.
--- MY CONTEXT (fill this in) ---
Topic I'm teaching you: [name it]
My level (so you know how to push back):
[e.g., "undergraduate", "master's student", "self-taught"]
How hard I want you to be:
[e.g., "curious beginner", "sharp student who asks follow-ups", "skeptical professor who tests every claim"]
--- HOW THIS WORKS ---
1. I will explain the topic to you in my own words. Do not interrupt my first explanation.
2. After I finish, play the student I described above. Ask me 3 questions:
- One basic question about something I might have skipped or oversimplified.
- One follow-up that tests whether I understand why the concept works, not just what it is.
- One hard question that probes an edge case or connection to other concepts in my sources.
3. Use only what's in my sources to generate your questions. If I say something that contradicts my sources, point it out.
4. After I answer each question, tell me: whether my answer is correct, what I missed, and which part of my sources I should revisit.
5. At the end, score my understanding from 1 to 10 and tell me what to study next.
Ready? I'll start teaching when I type "Here's my explanation:"