10 prompts that turn any AI into a patient tutor

Explain [topic] to me as if I am smart but completely new to it. Use one everyday analogy, then the real explanation in plain words, under 250 words total. Avoid jargon; if a technical term is unavoidable, define it in the same sentence. Then ask me one question that checks whether I understood, and wait for my answer before continuing. Do not answer the question yourself.

Use it for the first ten minutes with any new subject. Tested with compound interest: the model gave a snowball analogy, a clean definition, and a check question with a specific number in it ("on what total will Year 2 interest be calculated?"), then stopped. Edit before sending: the word "new". If you know a little, say what; "I understand simple interest but not compounding" produces a much better explanation than a blank slate.

I am going to explain [topic] in my own words, as if to a 12-year-old. Your job is to act as the Feynman check. Read my explanation and then: 1) point out every place I used a word I did not explain or hand-waved past a step, 2) identify the single weakest link in my understanding, 3) ask me one question that would expose whether I really understand that weak link. Do not explain the topic yourself yet. Be direct, not encouraging.

My explanation: [write it here, badly if necessary]

Use it for the night before an exam or a presentation. Tested with a "wanted poster" explanation of vaccines: it flagged three undefined words, named the mechanism of antibodies as the weak link, and asked what an antibody physically does to a germ. That was the right question. Edit before sending: nothing in the prompt; the edit is to write your explanation without looking anything up. If you check first, the prompt tests your reading, not your understanding.

Teach me how to solve this kind of problem: [type of problem, e.g. balancing chemical equations, calculating net present value, conjugating irregular verbs in the past tense]. First, solve one example step by step, and at each step say why you did it, not just what you did. Keep it to the minimum number of steps. Then give me one new problem of the same type but with different numbers or words, and stop. Do not solve it. When I send my answer, tell me if it is right, and if it is wrong, tell me which step went wrong and nothing more, so I can retry.

Use it for anything procedural: math, accounting, grammar, code. The "which step went wrong and nothing more" line stops the model handing you the full solution the moment you slip. Edit before sending: paste one problem from your own textbook or course as the type; the model's invented examples are sometimes easier than the real ones.

I am learning [topic]. List the five most common misconceptions that people at my level ([level, e.g. high school, first-year undergraduate, self-taught beginner]) hold about this topic, with the correct idea beside each. Then, without telling me which is which, give me five statements about the topic, some true and some containing one of those misconceptions, and ask me to sort them. Wait for my answer before revealing the key.

Use it for subjects where you feel confident, which is exactly when you are carrying a wrong idea. Tested with photosynthesis: the five misconceptions were the classic ones (oxygen comes from CO2, the dark reactions happen at night, plants do not respire), each paired with the correction, and then it set the sorting task and stopped. Edit before sending: the level. "High school" and "medical student" produce completely different lists.

Turn the material below into 20 flashcards for spaced repetition. Rules: one fact or idea per card, never two. The front is a question or a cloze deletion with one blank, not a heading. The back is under 25 words. Mix the types: about half recall ("What is X?"), a quarter "why" or "how" questions, a quarter applied ("Given Y, what happens to X?"). No card should be answerable from the wording of the front alone. Output as a table with two columns, Front and Back, so I can paste it into Anki or a spreadsheet. Then list any three cards you think are too easy and offer harder replacements.

Material:
[paste notes, a chapter summary, or a transcript]

Use it for anything you need to still know in three months. The "no card answerable from its own wording" rule is what separates real cards from trivia. Edit before sending: the count. Twenty cards from a chapter is right; twenty from a paragraph produces padding.

Here is the syllabus or topic list for [course or exam], and the date I need to be ready: [date]. I can study [hours] a week, in sessions of about [minutes]. My current level: [honest description, including what I have already covered].

Build a week-by-week plan to the date. Rules: order topics so each builds on the last; give every session one topic and one concrete task (read, practice problems, explain aloud, flashcard review); put a review session every week that only revisits earlier weeks; leave the last [X] days for practice tests only; flag the three topics most likely to be examined heavily and give them extra sessions. Output as a table: week, session, topic, task, time. Then ask me two questions that would change the plan if my answers were different.

Syllabus:
[paste]

Use it for any exam with a date. The two closing questions are the model's chance to catch what you left out, usually "which topics scare you" and "how did the last exam go". Edit before sending: the hours. Give the number you will actually do, not the number you wish you would; the plan is only useful if it fits.

Below is a research paper (or its abstract and conclusion). Explain it to me as a beginner in five parts, each under 80 words: 1) the question they asked, in plain words; 2) what they did to answer it, without method jargon; 3) what they found, with the one number that matters; 4) what it does not show, including the limits the authors admit; 5) why anyone outside the field should care. Then give me one question I could ask an expert about this paper that would show I understood it. Do not add claims that are not in the text.

Paper:
[paste]

Use it for reading outside your field, and for checking whether a headline matches the study behind it. Edit before sending: paste the paper's own text, not a news article about it; part 4 is the valuable part, and only the paper contains its own caveats.

Be my [language] conversation partner. My level: [beginner / about A2 / intermediate]. Scenario: [e.g. ordering coffee and a pastry at a cafe, checking into a hotel, explaining a problem to a landlord]. Speak only in [language], one or two short sentences at a time, and always end with something that needs a reply from me. When I make a mistake, put a corrected version of my sentence in brackets after your reply, and nothing more; do not explain the grammar unless I ask. Keep the vocabulary to what a [level] learner would know, and introduce at most one new word per turn. Start the scenario now.

Use it for daily ten-minute practice. Tested in Spanish: the opening was two short sentences and a question, in the target language only, nothing else, which is exactly the restraint most assistants lack. Edit before sending: add "if I write in English, reply in [language] anyway and carry on" if you tend to bail out. Use the voice mode on ChatGPT or Gemini for the same prompt spoken aloud.

Run a mock interview with me for [role] at [type of company]. Here is the job description: [paste]. Here is my background in three lines: [paste]. Ask me one question at a time, starting with an easy one and getting harder, mixing behavioral questions ("tell me about a time") with technical or situational ones drawn from the job description. After each answer, give me a score out of 10 and one specific way to improve it, in under 60 words, then ask the next question. Do not give me model answers unless I ask. After eight questions, stop and summarize my three strongest and three weakest patterns.

Use it for the week before an interview; run it three times with the difficulty rising. The score is not the point; the "one specific way to improve" is. Edit before sending: paste the real job description. Generic drills produce generic questions, and the real interviewer will not ask those.

I have been learning [topic] for [time] and I think I understand it. Act as a senior expert in this field who has been asked to find out, politely, whether I actually do. Ask me the five questions you would ask a junior colleague to test real understanding rather than memorized facts: questions about edge cases, about why things are done one way and not another, and about what breaks when an assumption changes. Ask them one at a time. After each of my answers, say whether an expert would accept it, and if not, what an expert would have said, in two sentences. Do not soften the verdicts.

Use it for the end of a course, before you put a skill on your CV, or before you ship something built on it. Edit before sending: the field. "Statistics" gets you textbook questions; "A/B testing for a small e-commerce site" gets you the questions someone would actually ask.