Evaluate a potential strategic partnership before you commit
Partnerships feel strategic in the pitch meeting and become a distraction six months in. This prompt runs a structured evaluation before you sign an MOU or assign headcount.
I'm evaluating a potential strategic partnership between {{COMPANY_NAME}} and {{PARTNER_NAME}}. Here is what the partnership would involve: {{PARTNERSHIP_DESCRIPTION}}. Our primary goal from this partnership is {{OUR_GOAL}}.
1. Clarify the type of partnership: distribution, technology integration, co-selling, co-marketing, or other. The evaluation criteria differ by type — confirm which applies before scoring.
2. Score the partnership on five dimensions using High/Medium/Low: (a) Strategic alignment — does this advance our core business, or is it a distraction? (b) Incentive symmetry — does {{PARTNER_NAME}} win when we win, or are our incentives misaligned? (c) Opportunity cost — what else would the team working on this be doing? (d) Reversibility — how hard is it to exit if it doesn't work? (e) Proof of demand — is there evidence that customers actually want this combination?
3. Based on the scores, recommend one of three verdicts: Proceed, Run a 90-day pilot first, or Decline. State the single most important condition that must be true for your recommended verdict to hold.
4. Draft three questions I should ask {{PARTNER_NAME}} in the next conversation to test whether this partnership is real or just relationship maintenance.
5. If {{PARTNER_NAME}} is significantly larger than {{COMPANY_NAME}}, flag the power imbalance risk: larger partners often under-resource smaller integrations. Describe what 'proof of commitment' should look like before we proceed.
Note: this prompt evaluates strategic fit, not legal or financial terms — those require separate review. {{COMPANY_NAME}}{{PARTNER_NAME}}{{PARTNERSHIP_DESCRIPTION}}{{OUR_GOAL}}
How to use this prompt
- Copy the prompt above (Copy button on the top-right).
- Replace each
{{VAR}}with your own value. Variables:{{COMPANY_NAME}}{{PARTNER_NAME}}{{PARTNERSHIP_DESCRIPTION}}{{OUR_GOAL}}. - Paste it into one of the recommended tools below.
- Iterate: tighten constraints in the prompt if the output is generic.
Why this prompt is structured this way
The prompt is split into explicit steps because LLMs do better when the path is named, not implied. Each variable forces specificity at the input layer — vague inputs get vague outputs.
Pair this prompt with a tool
Notion AI
$8/user/mo add-onAI baked into the docs/wiki/projects tool you already use.
Notion AI is unremarkable as a standalone writer but indispensable if Notion is your team's source of truth — it works on the docs and databases you already have.
Perplexity
$0/mo (Pro at $20)AI search engine with citations.
Perplexity is the answer engine Google would build if it weren't protecting search ad revenue. Cited answers, follow-up questions, focused source modes.
Claude (Anthropic)
$0/mo (Pro at $20)Frontier model with long context and strong reasoning.
Claude (Opus / Sonnet / Haiku tiers) is the assistant favored by writers and engineers who care about reasoning quality and tone. 1M token context on Opus.
Gumroad
$0/mo + 10% per saleSell digital products with a single link.
Gumroad is the fastest path from 'I have a digital file' to 'I have a payment link.' Higher fees than DIY Stripe but zero setup, built-in audience tools, license keys.
The PlaybookPrompts weekly
One short email per week. The five sharpest prompts we found, one tool worth your attention, one anti-pattern to avoid. Unsubscribe in one click.
Newsletter signup is not configured. Set PUBLIC_NEWSLETTER_USERNAME in the build env.