Prompt library
Outline a portfolio case study that shows judgment
Hiring reviews scan for judgment, and judgment lives in the fork section: real alternatives with reasons for the losers. Captioning artifacts with decisions instead of deliverable names reframes the whole study from output gallery to thinking record, which is the actual hiring signal.
Last reviewed July 17, 2026
The prompt
Outline a portfolio case study.
The project: {{project}}
The audience for the portfolio: {{audience}}
Structure:
1. The one-line frame: the problem plus the outcome, written so a hiring manager skimming 40 portfolios stops ("cut onboarding drop-off by a third by removing a step everyone defended").
2. Context and constraints: team, timeline, and the constraint that shaped everything; constraints are what make the work legible as judgment.
3. The fork: the 2-3 real directions considered, shown with the reason the losing ones lost. This section carries the case study; decisions, not deliverables, are what senior review looks for.
4. The work: 3-4 artifacts maximum, each captioned with the decision it embodies, never "here are some wireframes".
5. The result: numbers where they exist; where they do not, the observed behavior change plus what you would have measured with more time (that admission reads as maturity).
6. What I would do differently: one genuine item, specific enough to be believed.
Cut: process-worship (empathy-map photos), tool lists, and any artifact without a decision attached.Run in idaptOpens a new chat with the prompt prefilled. Nothing sends until you press send.
Fill in the variables
| Variable | What it is | Example |
|---|---|---|
| {{project}} | The project to present | the checkout redesign at my last job |
| {{audience}} | Who reviews it | design managers at product companies |