16 min · Power user
Project: The Gemini Power User System
Build a one-page or two-page operating system with seven prompt sets, version it, and prove you can repeat a result rather than remember a lucky chat.
Learning objectives
- Write a master prompt plus research, writing, productivity, business, analysis, and quality-control prompts.
- Version the page from v1 to v2 and review it on a monthly cycle.
- Run a real task through three prompts and record what the quality-control step caught.
01
Why this matters
A lucky answer disappears when the chat does. A power user needs a page that produces a similar result next week, with a different topic and the same standards. This project is that page: your standing context, your job prompts, and a review that is allowed to be harsh, not a new personality for the model.
02
Concept
Stop collecting chats. A power-user system is one or two pages: standing context, the job prompts, and a review you can rerun. Paste the master prompt into a fresh thread before any task prompt. Master prompt: You are my standing assistant for [role] on [project]. Use only these facts: [three facts]. Do not invent sources, numbers, quotes, or private details. Do not praise drafts. If a fact is missing, ask and stop.
Keep research and writing apart so a draft cannot quietly invent a source. Research prompt: Using only the notes I paste, list claims, the note each claim comes from, and gaps. Do not add facts or citations from memory. Rank gaps by what the decision needs. Writing prompt: Draft from the approved outline only. Match this reader: [reader]. Mark any sentence the outline does not support, and do not fill the gap yourself.
Name the constraint or these prompts will invent a calendar and a budget. Productivity prompt: Build a one-week plan from the tasks and limits I paste. Return a day-by-day list, one deep-work block a day, and the item to drop if time slips. Do not add tasks. Business prompt: Frame the problem, then three options with evidence, cost, and what would prove the option wrong. Do not recommend until I ask.
Analysis and quality control stop you from agreeing with a smooth page. Analysis prompt: Compare the options in the notes I paste. Use columns for evidence, risk, and unknown. Do not invent numbers. If a cell has no note, write unknown. Quality-control prompt: Review the draft against the rubric I paste. Start with defects. No praise. Do not add facts. Quote the failing line and name the failed check. If none, say none found.
03
Real-world example
Version the page, and do not depend on one menu
As of late 2026, Gems — saved assistants — and Skills — reusable instruction files — were the product places some students stored a standing prompt. Those surfaces roll out unevenly. If your menu differs, check the current screen, and store the same system in a document you control. Name the file with the version. v1 is the first page you can actually run, not a fantasy of twenty prompts. When you change a prohibition or a shape, save v2 and write one line on what changed and why. Review the page monthly. Retire a prompt you did not use. Improve one prompt that failed. Do not keep six variants of the same job. A colleague should be able to start a fresh chat from v2 alone: master prompt first, then one job prompt, then the quality-control prompt. The document is the system. The chat is only this week's run.
04
Gemini demonstration
A realistic exchange. Open Gemini beside this page and try a version with your own facts.
You
Master prompt: You are my standing assistant for a library coordinator on a Saturday-hours pilot. Use only these facts: we have 40 logged turnaways, two staff objections, and no cost sheet. Do not invent sources, numbers, quotes, or private details. Do not praise drafts. If a fact is missing, ask and stop. Now use the research prompt on these notes only.
Gemini
Research prompt, notes only. Claim: 40 Saturday turnaways were logged. Note: your fact list. Limit: a log is not a full demand study. Claim: two staff members objected to added shifts. Note: your fact list. Limit: two people are not the whole rota. Gap, ranked first: there is no cost sheet, and the decision needs cost. I am not estimating a wage, a crowd, or a public quote. I am not praising the pilot. Missing fact I will not invent: doctor coverage and weekday comparison. Under the master prompt I stop here. The writing prompt is not allowed yet, because there is no approved outline and the cost gap is open. If you want analysis next, paste only these claims and I will put unknown in every cell the notes do not fill.
You
Quality-control prompt. Rubric: completeness, faithfulness, specificity, action, no new facts. Draft: We should open Saturdays. Families will love it, and costs are manageable. Staff are excited. Start with defects. No praise. Do not add facts.
Gemini
Defects only. Completeness fails: there is no evidence section, no risk, and no next step. Faithfulness fails: families will love it is not in the notes, and staff are excited contradicts the two objections you supplied. Specificity fails: manageable has no figure, and you already said the cost sheet is missing. Action fails: there is no owner and no review date. No new facts: I will not insert a cost or a crowd to rescue the draft. Quote: costs are manageable. Failed check: faithfulness. Quote: Staff are excited. Failed check: faithfulness. I did not call any line strong. Repair by deleting every claim that lacks a note, then mark cost as unknown. The decision remains yours. Say if you want this review saved into v2 of the page as a worked example.
05
Prompt breakdown
The prompt
Quality-control prompt: Review the draft against the rubric I paste. Start with defects. No praise. Do not add facts. Quote the failing line and name the failed check. If none, say none found. Rubric: [paste]. Draft: [paste].
- It is a reusable instruction, so the review does not depend on the mood of a fresh chat.
- The rubric is pasted each time, which lets you tighten v2 without rewriting the whole master prompt.
- No praise blocks the flattery failure you already practiced.
- Quoting the line gives you a repair you can file next to the version note.
06
Common mistakes
Usually
A new chat with no master prompt, hoping the model remembers last month.
Better
Paste the master prompt from the current version, then one job prompt.
Usually
Twenty slightly different writing prompts saved under Gem names you never open.
Better
One writing prompt in the document, versioned when you change it, reviewed monthly.
Usually
The quality-control prompt says be supportive and add anything that would strengthen the case.
Better
Start with defects, ban praise, and ban new facts.
07
Practice exercise
Fill the master prompt and the quality-control prompt
Done when: v1 contains your filled master prompt and your filled quality-control prompt, and both name limits you would actually enforce.
08
Challenge
Three prompts, one real task, one caught defect
Pick a real task that is allowed to leave your desk. Run it through three prompts from your page: the master prompt, one job prompt such as research or analysis, and the quality-control prompt. Paste only the notes the job prompt allows. Save the three outputs. Then write a short record of what the quality-control step caught: the quoted line, the failed check, and the edit you made. If it caught nothing, tighten the rubric and run it once more. File the record on the page as the reason v1 became worth keeping.
Hint: Choose the job prompt before you start, and do not let the model skip ahead to a polished final while the review is still open.
09
Key takeaways
- The system is a page you can rerun: master, job prompts, and a harsh review.
- Store it in the product if the screen offers that, and in a document if the menu differs.
- Version the page v1, v2, and review it monthly by retiring one prompt and improving one.
- A power user can repeat a result, not someone who once got a lucky answer.
10