Optimizer

Make the prompt do the work

A landscape scan, a competitive comparison, or any deliverable that has to cite where it got its facts.

Your current prompt

**Topic**
Incident Response Tooling Comparison for a {{team_size}}-Person Team

**Scope**
1. Published pricing for PagerDuty, Opsgenie, Splunk On-Call, and incident.io at {{team_size}} seats, checked against {{budget_amount}}.
2. Alert-routing and escalation-policy depth per tool (how many escalation layers, whether follow-the-sun scheduling is supported natively).
3. Integration breadth with the team's existing stack (monitoring tools, ChatOps platform, status-page tooling) and which integrations require a paid add-on tier.
4. Incident-lifecycle features beyond paging (postmortem templates, timeline auto-generation, retrospective tracking) and which tools bundle them versus charge separately.
5. Reported reliability of the paging path itself (the tool's own status-page history for outages, since an incident tool that goes down during an incident is the one failure mode that cannot be tolerated).
Focus should be on a {{team_size}}-person engineering team running its first formalized on-call rotation, characterized by needing escalation and postmortem tooling in one product rather than stitched together. Every price and feature claim must cite the vendor's own pricing or documentation page with the date it was checked.

**Sources**
Use each vendor's own pricing and documentation pages as the primary artifact (PagerDuty, Opsgenie, Splunk On-Call, incident.io); each vendor's own public status-page history for reliability record; G2 and a named practitioner community (SRE-focused tooling roundups, or r/sre) for real-team usage reports; and the team's own current monitoring and ChatOps stack documentation to confirm integration compatibility before scoring it.

**Analysis Framework**
Build the Tooling Fit Matrix. Report outline: 1. **Pricing at {{team_size}} Seats** - a table with columns Tool, Monthly Cost, Cost Against {{budget_amount}}, Overage Terms; 2. **Escalation Depth** - layers and scheduling features per tool; 3. **Integration Coverage** - what connects natively versus what requires a paid tier; 4. **Lifecycle Features** - postmortem and retrospective tooling bundled or separate; 5. **Reliability Record** - each vendor's own outage history over the last 12 months.

Uncertainty Log: Features marketed as available that could not be confirmed against the vendor's current documentation and would need a live trial to verify.

Template · 2 variables

2 of 2 still blank. Anything left blank is sent to the model as {{placeholder}}.

Describe your ideal output (optional)

ModeModel

4 blocks · 3 clarifying questions · Auto rotates through the models your plan unlocks, switching every two runs per mode.

⌘ + Enter

Research frame

What you will get back

01Topic
A headline in Title Case. A colon subtitle is allowed. No sentence, no verb.
02Scope
A numbered 1–5 coverage list, each item carrying parenthetical sub-metrics. Include a "focus should be on the <profile>, characterized by …" sentence and an explicit citation mandate.
03Sources
Source CLASSES, each with concrete named EXAMPLES: official documentation, filings and rulings, industry reports (name them), data aggregators (name them), practitioner communities, trade bodies.
04Analysis Framework
Open by naming the artifact ("Strategy Suitability Matrix"), then a numbered report outline whose section names are bold. Include one table or matrix with its Columns spelled out. End with an Uncertainty Log section.

Plus 3 clarifying questions you can answer to re-run with more facts.