This AI prompt prepares you for salary and contract negotiations
Why this prompt matters
Most people go into negotiations with feelings, not structure. They know the offer seems low, the contract terms feel one-sided, or the scope looks risky, but they cannot translate that into a credible counter, a defensible walk-away point, or a calm response when the other side pushes back. That gap costs real money and often locks people into bad terms for a year or more. A strong negotiation prompt helps turn vague discomfort into a practical plan: what to ask for, what to trade, what not to concede, and when a deal is not actually worth taking.
What we use it for
Preparing for a compensation or contract negotiation when you need a concrete ask, a fallback plan, and language for handling pushback without sounding robotic or reckless.
Prompt
Act as a senior compensation strategist and negotiation coach. I am preparing to negotiate a job offer, promotion package, consulting contract, or renewal agreement. Your job is to turn my raw situation into a realistic negotiation plan that improves my leverage, clarifies my walk-away point, and gives me language I can actually use live. I will provide: - [ROLE OR CONTRACT TYPE] - [CURRENT COMPENSATION OR RATE] - [NEW OFFER OR PROPOSED TERMS] - [LOCATION / MARKET] - [YEARS OF EXPERIENCE] - [KEY ACHIEVEMENTS OR UNIQUE LEVERAGE] - [COMPETING OFFERS OR ALTERNATIVES] - [MUST-HAVE TERMS] - [NICE-TO-HAVE TERMS] - [BIGGEST RISKS OR CONCERNS] - [MY COMMUNICATION STYLE] Return your answer in exactly these sections: 1. Situation Summary 2. Where My Leverage Comes From 3. Likely Weak Spots in My Position 4. Target Ask 5. Minimum Acceptable Outcome 6. BATNA and Walk-Away Conditions 7. Recommended Negotiation Sequence 8. Suggested Opening Message 9. Live Call Script 10. Responses to Common Pushback 11. Tradeoffs I Can Offer Without Losing Too Much 12. Red Flags in the Offer or Contract 13. Final Recommendation Rules: - Be commercially realistic. Do not tell me to make an aggressive ask unless the facts support it. - Distinguish clearly between strong leverage, weak leverage, and emotional preference. - If my current position is weak, say so directly and optimize for a smart, credible negotiation rather than a maximal one. - Consider salary, bonus, equity, signing bonus, severance, review timeline, title, scope, remote flexibility, hours, exclusivity, IP terms, payment timing, and termination language when relevant. - If this is a contract or consulting deal, evaluate payment terms, revision scope, kill fees, ownership of work, and renewal risk. - Write the opening message and live script in a tone that matches [MY COMMUNICATION STYLE]. - Give specific language, not generic advice. - If important information is missing, state the assumption before giving the plan. My situation: [PASTE DETAILS HERE]
Result
1. Situation Summary: You are a senior product marketer with seven years of experience. Your current compensation is £78,000 base with a 10 percent bonus. A SaaS company in London has offered £84,000 base, no guaranteed bonus, and stock options with a four-year vesting schedule, but the role also expands your scope to include team leadership and pricing strategy. You want stronger upside and clearer protection because the company has had two rounds of layoffs in the last 18 months.
2. Where My Leverage Comes From: You have direct revenue-linked wins, including a launch that increased pipeline conversion by 18 percent and a pricing test that improved expansion revenue. The new role asks for exactly the mix you already have: messaging, product launches, and commercial strategy. You also have a second interview process moving with another employer, which gives you moderate timing leverage even if it is not yet a written alternative offer.
3. Likely Weak Spots in My Position: You do not yet have a hard competing offer, and the hiring company may frame the equity as the upside substitute for a higher base. Because the market is softer than it was two years ago, a very aggressive counter could make you sound out of sync if it is not tied to scope and market evidence.
4. Target Ask: Counter at £92,000 base, a 12 percent target bonus, and either a larger equity grant or a written six-month compensation review tied to performance milestones. Ask for severance of at least two months if the role is eliminated without cause in the first year.
5. Minimum Acceptable Outcome: £88,000 base plus one of the following: meaningful bonus target, signing bonus, or a documented salary review inside six months. If none of those move, the offer is probably underpricing the added scope.
6. BATNA and Walk-Away Conditions: Your BATNA is staying in your current role while advancing the second process. Walk away if the company refuses any movement on pay while still expecting leadership-level scope, or if they resist basic clarity on bonus, review timing, or layoff protection.
7. Recommended Negotiation Sequence: First confirm enthusiasm for the role. Second, connect your ask to scope and measurable business impact, not personal need. Third, lead with base salary, then move to bonus and review timing. Fourth, use equity as a secondary lever, not the only lever. Fifth, if they hold the line on base, trade toward signing bonus, severance, or an earlier review.
8. Suggested Opening Message: I am excited about the role and the scope feels like a strong fit with the work I have been doing. Given the leadership expectations and the commercial responsibilities attached to the position, I would be more comfortable accepting at £92,000 base with a 12 percent bonus target, plus either a stronger equity grant or a written six-month compensation review. I think that better reflects the value I would be expected to deliver.
9. Live Call Script: I want to start by saying I am genuinely enthusiastic about the role. The reason I want to revisit the package is that the scope is broader than a standard product marketing brief. This role touches team leadership, pricing strategy, and revenue impact, which lines up well with the results I have delivered before. Because of that, I would be looking for a base closer to £92,000 and a clearer upside structure. If base flexibility is limited, I would like to talk through bonus, review timing, or another mechanism that makes the package feel aligned with the expectations.
10. Responses to Common Pushback: If they say this is the top of band, respond: I understand band constraints. In that case, could we solve the gap through a signing bonus, a six-month salary review, or clearer bonus terms tied to the expanded scope? If they say equity covers the difference, respond: I value equity, but because equity is long-dated and uncertain, I would still want the cash component to better reflect the day-one responsibilities.
11. Tradeoffs I Can Offer Without Losing Too Much: Flex on bonus mix if the base rises. Flex on title if comp and scope are documented clearly. Accept a smaller base move only if review timing and success metrics are written down.
12. Red Flags in the Offer or Contract: No bonus language, vague equity explanation, no written review timing, and broad expectations without explicit resourcing. Given recent layoffs, weak severance language is also a concern.
13. Final Recommendation: Negotiate, but keep the tone measured. Your position supports a meaningful counter, but the strongest version of your case is scope plus revenue impact, not a generic market-price argument. If they move to at least £88,000 and improve one more major term, the deal becomes credible. If they hold firm on everything, the package likely undervalues the role relative to the risk and responsibility.
Most people do not lose negotiations because they have no leverage. They lose because they cannot translate their leverage into a structured ask. They know the offer feels low, the contract feels one-sided, or the scope has expanded without enough compensation, but they walk into the conversation with instincts instead of a plan.
This prompt fixes that by forcing the model to separate emotion from strategy. It asks for the current offer, market context, alternatives, must-have terms, and negotiation style, then turns that information into a concrete playbook: what to ask for, what the minimum acceptable outcome looks like, where the real leverage comes from, and what to say when the other side pushes back.
The structure matters. A good negotiation is not just a higher number. It is a sequencing problem. Should you anchor on base salary first, or start with role scope? Should you trade title for compensation review, or equity for severance protection? Should you push hard now, or preserve goodwill because your fallback is weak? This prompt makes those tradeoffs explicit instead of leaving them vague.
It is also useful because it works for more than full-time job offers. The same logic applies to consulting retainers, freelance contracts, promotion packages, advisory agreements, and renewal terms. In each case, the model is told to examine both money and structure: payment timing, bonus language, exclusivity, IP terms, kill fees, review windows, and termination risk.
What makes the prompt strong is that it does not default to bravado. If your position is weak, it says so and shifts toward a credible, risk-aware negotiation instead of telling you to make an unrealistic demand. That makes the output more useful in real life, where the goal is not to sound tough, but to leave the conversation with a better deal and fewer avoidable mistakes.