The prompt
Copy it whole, replace every bracketed variable, then paste it as your first message.
You are my drafting partner for a cover letter. I direct, you propose, I judge, I own what I submit. Read everything before you reply. ## 1. Material The posting: [THE POSTING] My record (the only source of claims about me): [YOUR RECORD] Why I want this one, honestly: [WHY THIS ONE] Where I fall short of the posting: [THE GAP] What I actually know about them (may be empty): [WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM] My register, a sample of my own writing: [YOUR REGISTER] Length ceiling: [LENGTH] ## 2. Rules - Every claim about me comes from my record. Never add a skill, achievement, number, tool, responsibility, or trait that is not there. If the letter wants one, write [VERIFY: what would be needed] instead. - Never claim knowledge of or enthusiasm for the organization beyond what I gave you. If "what I know about them" is empty, the letter does not mention their mission, culture, or values. - Make two or three specific connections between something I did and something the posting needs. Each connection names the thing I did, briefly, and the need it meets. No more than three; a longer list reads as a resume restated. - Handle the gap honestly: either address it in one plain sentence with what offsets it, or leave it for the interview and say nothing. Choose per gap and tell me which you chose and why, after the draft. - The first sentence says what I am applying for and the single strongest reason I should be considered. No "I am writing to express my interest." - The last sentence is a plain next step. No "I would welcome the opportunity", no "thank you for your consideration", no "I look forward to hearing from you". - Match my register. The interviewer should meet the person who wrote the letter. - Use the number of paragraphs the connections need. Usually three or four. Banned: "excited", "passionate", "thrilled", "I believe my skills align", "perfect fit", "dynamic", "fast-paced", "proven track record", "results-driven", "team player", "leverage", "synergy", "I am confident that", "as you can see", "unique opportunity", any adjective describing me that is not demonstrated by a fact in the same sentence. ## 3. How we work Before drafting, list the two or three connections you intend to make, each in one line: what I did, what they need. Also tell me which requirement in the posting my record supports least. Wait for me to approve or change the connections. When I say "draft": one draft, then one short note on how each gap was handled, then stop. When I say "change only X": return only the changed sentences marked OLD and NEW. When I say "options for the first sentence": three versions, each leading with a different connection. When I say "interview check": do not rewrite. List every claim in the letter and what in my record supports it, and flag anything an interviewer could ask about that I might struggle to answer. ## 4. Begin Reply with the proposed connections and the least-supported requirement. Do not draft.
- Best for
- Cover letters for roles you are genuinely qualified for
- Application statements and 'why this program' essays, with the ethics notes in mind
- Internal applications, where the reader already knows you and filler is embarrassing
- Career changers who need to make a non-obvious connection explicit
- Not for
- Roles you are not qualified for and hoping to bluff. The prompt will not invent the qualifications, and neither should you
- Academic or scholarship applications that prohibit AI assistance. Check the rules. Many do
- Mass applications. The letter is only as good as the match you supply, and supplying a real match takes time
Cover letters are the most templated writing in existence, and AI has made the template free. Hiring managers now read hundreds of letters that are 'excited to apply', that 'believe their skills align', that 'would welcome the opportunity to discuss'. These letters are not bad. They are invisible.
The problem with letting a model write one is not only that it sounds like everyone. It is that the model will invent. It will give you a quantified achievement you never had, a passion for the company's mission you have not read about, a skill the posting asks for that you do not possess. Those inventions get asked about in interviews.
This prompt is built around evidence. It asks for the posting, your actual record, and the honest gap between them. It drafts a letter that makes two or three specific connections and says nothing it cannot support. The result is shorter than the template and much harder to ignore.
Variables
What to put in each bracket. Required ones are marked. Thin answers here are the usual cause of generic output.
[THE POSTING]RequiredThe job posting or program description, pasted in full.
ExampleThe full text of the listing, including responsibilities and requirements
[YOUR RECORD]RequiredWhat you actually did, with specifics: roles, projects, outcomes, numbers you can defend, skills you have used. Your resume plus notes.
ExampleResume text; three projects described in a paragraph each with what you personally did; the two numbers you can prove
[WHY THIS ONE]RequiredThe true reason you want this role, in a sentence. If it is the salary and the commute, say so. The assistant will find something honest to say or say nothing.
ExampleThey are the only company in the region doing this kind of work and I have followed their product for two years
[THE GAP]RequiredRequirements in the posting you do not meet, or meet only partly. Be honest. The assistant will decide how to handle each.
ExampleThey ask for five years; I have three. They want a certification I am halfway through
[WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM]Anything real you know about the organization, team, or hiring manager. Leave empty if nothing. The assistant will not invent it.
ExampleTheir blog post about moving to a four-day week; a former colleague who works there says the team is small and ships weekly
[YOUR REGISTER]RequiredA paragraph of your own professional writing so the letter sounds like the person who will show up to the interview.
ExampleA paragraph from a work email or a past letter
[LENGTH]A ceiling. Most cover letters should be under 300 words.
ExampleUnder 280 words
Why it is built this way
Each block does one job. Knowing the job lets you shorten or adapt the prompt without breaking it.
Record as the only source of claims
The rule that keeps the letter true. Invented achievements are the most common and most damaging failure of AI-drafted applications, and they surface in interviews.
No invented knowledge of the employer
'I have long admired your commitment to innovation' is the sentence that tells a hiring manager the letter is generic. If you know nothing specific, the letter says nothing, which reads as honest.
Two or three connections, approved before drafting
The connections are the letter. Seeing them as one-liners first lets you pick the strongest and catch any the record does not support, before a draft hides them in prose.
The gap, handled per item
Models either ignore gaps or over-explain them. Forcing a per-gap choice, with the reasoning stated after the draft, gives you the decision instead of the default.
First and last sentence rules
The two sentences every reader actually reads. Stating what the opener must do and banning the formula closers removes the most template-like parts of the form.
Adjectives only with evidence in the same sentence
A single rule that eliminates the self-description that fills most letters. 'Detail-oriented' is a claim, but 'reconciled 400 accounts with no variance for two years' is evidence.
Interview check
The final test: could you defend every sentence in a room? The claim-to-record list makes it concrete, and flags the sentences that sound good but would be hard to back up.
Example run
A representative first response, with the input summarized. Your results will differ by model and material.
Filled for a support operations manager role: a full posting, the applicant's record with three projects and two defensible numbers, a true reason for wanting it, a gap on years of experience and a certification in progress, and one real fact about the company's four-day week.
Connections I would make: 1. You rebuilt the triage process at your current job and cut first-response time from 9 hours to 2; the posting leads with "reduce time to first response". 2. You ran the migration to a new ticketing tool with no downtime; the posting mentions an upcoming platform change. 3. You trained four new hires on the process you wrote; the posting asks for "onboarding and documentation". Least supported: "experience with workforce forecasting". Your record has scheduling, not forecasting. I would not claim it. Gap handling: for the years of experience I would say nothing; the triage result speaks to it. For the certification I would mention it is in progress in one clause, because the posting says "or working toward".
The connections are specific, the unsupported requirement is named and left alone, and the gap handling is a real choice with reasons. The applicant swapped connection three for a different project with a number attached, approved, and the draft that followed was 240 words. The 'interview check' flagged one sentence as hard to defend, and she cut it.
Follow-up prompts
The second turn is where vibe writing happens. These are the short messages that keep the session moving.
After approving or changing the connections
Connections approved, with this change: [CHANGE IF ANY]. Draft.
Before submitting
Interview check.
When the opener is weak
Options for the first sentence.
When it reads like a resume in paragraphs
The second paragraph lists duties. Change only that paragraph: keep one thing I did, say what it changed for the team, cut the rest. OLD and NEW.
When adapting for a second, similar role
New posting: [POSTING]. Same record. Propose connections again from scratch; do not reuse the previous letter's sentences. Tell me which connections are new.
When it goes wrong
Symptoms you will actually see, the usual cause, and the correction that works.
A quantified achievement appears that you do not recognize.
- Cause
- The model knows letters with numbers do better and supplied one.
- Fix
- Run 'interview check' and cut everything that traces to nothing. Then add a real number from your record if you have one. A letter with one true number beats one with three plausible ones.
It praises the company's mission.
- Cause
- The 'what I know about them' variable was empty and the model filled it anyway, or it extrapolated from the posting.
- Fix
- Cut the sentence. Reply: 'Say nothing about them beyond what I gave you.' A letter that does not flatter reads as confident.
The gap is explained at length.
- Cause
- The model treats a gap as something to justify.
- Fix
- Choose per gap: one clause or silence. Say which, and ask for 'change only the gap sentence'.
It sounds like a competent applicant, not like you.
- Cause
- The register sample was formal already, or too short.
- Fix
- Paste something you wrote that sounds like you talking: an email to a colleague explaining how you solved something. Say 'mine, this register, cleaned up but not formalized.'
Before you publish
The prompt cannot do these. You can.
- Every claim is true, and you could expand on each one for five minutes in an interview.
- Every number matches a record you could produce if asked.
- Nothing about the employer is said that you did not actually know before drafting.
- The application rules allow AI assistance. Some employers and most academic programs now ask. Answer honestly if they do.
- Read the letter aloud. If a sentence would embarrass you to say to the hiring manager's face, cut it.
Questions
Do employers mind if a cover letter was written with AI?
Most mind generic letters, whoever wrote them. Some now ask directly, and some application systems state a policy. If asked, answer honestly. A letter built from your record and rewritten in your voice is defensible. A letter the model wrote from nothing is not, and it tends to show.
Why only two or three connections?
Because the reader has a resume for the full list. The letter's job is to make the match obvious in thirty seconds. Three strong, specific connections do that. Eight weak ones restate the resume and get skimmed.
What if I know nothing specific about the company?
Then either spend twenty minutes learning something real, or let the letter say nothing about them. Both are better than the flattery the model would otherwise produce. Something real includes a product you used, a post they published, a person you spoke to.
Can I use this for a graduate school statement?
The structure helps, especially the record-only rule and the connections. But check the program's AI policy first. Many prohibit AI-generated text in statements, and some ask you to certify it. If the policy prohibits drafting, use only the connections step to plan, then write it yourself.