Ask for options, not answers

In partnership with

Type the problem. Get the plan. Follow the plan.

That was my loop, and it felt efficient. One shot, one answer, done. No second opinion, no comparison, just quiet trust that the first response was the right one.

Then I read a thread on r/PromptEngineering that flipped the whole arrangement, and I have not typed the old question since.

An entire ad agency in the palm of your hand.

Your next campaign needs a dozen fresh ad variations by Friday. Your agency quotes two weeks and a five-figure invoice. Your in-house designers are already buried under this quarter's requests.

Hightouch Ad Studio fixes that. It reads your brand guidelines, your best-performing creative, and your product catalog, then generates on-brand ads your team can ship the same afternoon. You review and approve every asset before it goes live, so quality holds.

Growth teams use it to build variations for every audience, test more of them, and stop rationing creative because production got expensive. The work that once needed a full agency retainer now runs inside your own workflow, at your pace and under your direction.

You direct the work while Ad Studio handles production, and your designers get their week back.

Start your first campaign today

_*Ad

The flip is smaller than it sounds and bigger than it looks

Instead of asking for the plan, you ask for options. Then you use your own judgment, or a checklist you control, to pick the winner.

That reads like a minor tweak to a prompt. It changes almost everything about what happens to the output afterward.

The thread pointed to a LeadDev piece about when to delegate work to a model and when not to, and the core argument landed hard for me. A model is excellent at generating a wide field of possibilities quickly. It is much weaker at knowing which one actually fits your situation.

It does not know the things that decide the answer

It does not know your team skill level. It does not know your deadline pressure, your tech debt, or the political reality of your organization.

None of that fits in a prompt, and all of it belongs in the decision.

So the move is to stop handing it the decision and start using it as the option generator, keeping the call where it belongs, which is with you.

The comment that made it click

One commenter on the thread put the mechanism better than the article did:

Let the model cast a wide net. Then use rules you control, not vibes and not a second guess from the same model, to cut the net down.

The model brings breadth. You bring judgment. I have read that line probably fifteen times this week.

10x the context. Half the time.

Speak your prompts into ChatGPT or Claude and get detailed, paste-ready input that actually gives you useful output. Wispr Flow captures what you'd cut when typing. Free on Mac, Windows, and iPhone.

Try Wispr Flow free

_*Ad

What this looks like on an actual question

Here is the old way. I ask how I should structure a database migration. I get one plan, delivered with total confidence. Then I either trust it blindly or waste an hour arguing with it, poking holes in a single answer that was never built to be debated in the first place.

Here is the new way. I ask for three to five ways to structure the migration, with tradeoffs for each. Now I get the field laid out: rollback complexity, downtime risk, engineering effort, side by side.

Then I apply my own filter. Cost, risk, team skill, deadline. I pick, and the reasoning stays visible instead of buried inside one confident sounding paragraph.

The real problem is false confidence

A single plan sounds authoritative whether or not it is any good. The model does not hedge unless you ask it to, so a mediocre answer and a great one read as equally persuasive.

That is the trap I kept falling into. I was not evaluating quality. I was responding to tone.

A list of options forces me to think, and thinking is still the part where humans beat the model. I know what broke last time. I know who is out next sprint. I know what the chief executive said in yesterday standup.

The GTM Playbook Behind Warmly's Acquisition

Warmly ran pipeline, outreach, and lead scoring on autopilot for hundreds of startups — before a single sales hire.

HubSpot acquired them for it. Now the cofounders are walking you through the exact system, live, before they disappear into product. Join the Builder Session on August 12.

Leave with an agentic GTM stack you can replicate this week. Plus HubSpot Credits when you join HubSpot for Startups.

Register Free Today

_*Ad

How I run it now

Ask for a spread rather than a single answer. "Give me four different approaches" beats "what should I do" every time, and the wider the spread, the more likely the genuinely best option appears somewhere in the list, even when it was not the first thing the model reached for.

Force the tradeoffs into the output. Add "list the downside of each option" so the model cannot dodge the ugly parts. Models default to sounding upbeat about whatever they just proposed, so you have to demand the downside explicitly.

Build your filter before you read the options. Decide what matters, whether that is speed, cost, or maintainability, before the answer arrives. Two written lines are enough. It keeps you from rationalizing backward toward whichever option reads best.

Cut with logic rather than vibes. Score each option against your filter and let the best score win, not the most persuasive prose. If two options tie, that is useful information, and it usually means your filter needs one more criterion.

Bring in a second model opinion only when your filter cannot break a tie. Do not default to asking a model to judge its own output. Save that for genuine deadlocks.

It feels slower for about a day

I expected this to cost me time, and for the first few attempts it did. Then the filter became a habit and the math reversed.

The old loop had a hidden tax I never counted. Implement the plan, discover the flaw, argue with the model, implement again. That cycle ate far more of my week than writing two criteria ever did.

Front loading the thinking means the back half of the project runs clean.

The skill is not prompting anymore

What surprised me is that none of this required better prompts. My prompts got simpler. What changed is that I stopped outsourcing the decision to something that has never met my team.

The model widens the field. I make the call with rules I actually trust. That is the whole practice, and it took me embarrassingly long to separate those two jobs.

So the next time you are mid project and about to type "what should I do", type "give me four options with the downside of each" instead. Write your two criteria down before you read the reply. Notice how much clearer the decision gets when you are choosing rather than obeying.

Check out the original post