AI prompt for creating user personas
This is a ready-made AI prompt for creating user personas, written for Claude and free to copy. Personas usually collect demographic detail that changes no decision — a name, an age, a favourite coffee — while omitting the goals and constraints that would. If two personas imply the same product choice, they are one persona. The prompt below handles that: it is compiled as a research task, so it carries the structure and the constraints that kind of work needs.
The prompt
Written for Claude. Compiled as a research task — gathering, sourcing, and synthesising information on a topic.
<role>
You are a meticulous researcher who distinguishes established fact from contested claim.
</role>
<context>
What we know from research: {{research}}. Who currently uses it: {{current_users}}. The decision these personas will inform: {{decision}}.
</context>
<task>
Create user personas for {{product}}.
</task>
<constraints>
- Base every persona on the research supplied. Invent no demographics.
- Describe goals, constraints and current workarounds — not age, hobbies or a stock photo.
- Each persona must imply a different product decision. Merge any two that do not.
- State what you do not know about each one.
- Do not invent sources, citations, statistics, quotations, or study results. Fabricated references are the single worst failure mode for this task.
- Clearly separate three things: established consensus, contested claims, and your own inference.
- Where you are working from training data rather than a supplied document, say so and flag that details may be out of date.
</constraints>
<approach>
Work through the problem step by step before giving your answer. Show the reasoning that actually drives your conclusion rather than a tidy summary written after the fact.
</approach>
<output_format>
Respond in Markdown. Use descriptive headings, and keep paragraphs to three sentences or fewer.
</output_format>
<success_criteria>
Before you finish, check the output against every item below and fix anything that fails.
- Each persona would lead to a different answer on the stated decision.
</success_criteria>
<before_you_start>
If anything above is unclear, or you are missing information you need, ask up to three specific clarifying questions before producing any output. Do not invent facts, names, numbers, sources, or quotations to fill a gap — if you do not know something, say so plainly.
</before_you_start>
Now, create user personas for {{product}}.Open this in the prompt builder to add your own context and see what would improve it most.
What makes creating user personas hard to prompt for
Personas usually collect demographic detail that changes no decision — a name, an age, a favourite coffee — while omitting the goals and constraints that would. If two personas imply the same product choice, they are one persona.
Why this prompt works
- Background comes before the instruction
- The model reads the situation before it learns what to do with it, which stops the instruction being diluted by everything that follows. The task is then restated as the final line, where models weight it most heavily.
- Rules a research task assumes but nobody writes down
- Do not invent sources, citations, statistics, quotations, or study results. Fabricated references are the single worst failure mode for this task. Clearly separate three things: established consensus, contested claims, and your own inference. These are added automatically because leaving them implicit is the most common reason this kind of output disappoints.
- Success criteria the model checks itself against
- Stating how the output will be judged gives the model something concrete to verify before it finishes. Prompts without criteria produce work that is plausible but incomplete, because nothing defined when it was done.
- Permission to ask instead of guess
- This brief leaves room for interpretation, so the prompt tells the model to ask before inventing details. That converts a confidently wrong answer into a question you can actually answer.
What to replace
| Placeholder | What to put there |
|---|---|
| {{research}} | Your research. |
| {{current_users}} | Your current users. |
| {{decision}} | Your decision. |
| {{product}} | Your product. |
Check the output before you use it
- For each persona, name a decision it would change. If you cannot, delete it.
- Remove any invented demographic detail not grounded in research.
- Check the "what we do not know" section exists — it is the honest part.
The same prompt for other models
Identical content, packaged the way each model reads most reliably.
ChatGPT
## Role
You are a meticulous researcher who distinguishes established fact from contested claim.
## Context
What we know from research: {{research}}. Who currently uses it: {{current_users}}. The decision these personas will inform: {{decision}}.
## Task
Create user personas for {{product}}.
## Constraints
- Base every persona on the research supplied. Invent no demographics.
- Describe goals, constraints and current workarounds — not age, hobbies or a stock photo.
- Each persona must imply a different product decision. Merge any two that do not.
- State what you do not know about each one.
- Do not invent sources, citations, statistics, quotations, or study results. Fabricated references are the single worst failure mode for this task.
- Clearly separate three things: established consensus, contested claims, and your own inference.
- Where you are working from training data rather than a supplied document, say so and flag that details may be out of date.
## Approach
Work through the problem step by step before giving your answer. Show the reasoning that actually drives your conclusion rather than a tidy summary written after the fact.
## Output format
Respond in Markdown. Use descriptive headings, and keep paragraphs to three sentences or fewer.
## Success criteria
Before you finish, check the output against every item below and fix anything that fails.
- Each persona would lead to a different answer on the stated decision.
## Before you start
If anything above is unclear, or you are missing information you need, ask up to three specific clarifying questions before producing any output. Do not invent facts, names, numbers, sources, or quotations to fill a gap — if you do not know something, say so plainly.
Now, create user personas for {{product}}.Gemini
**Task**
Create user personas for {{product}}.
**Role**
You are a meticulous researcher who distinguishes established fact from contested claim.
**Context**
What we know from research: {{research}}. Who currently uses it: {{current_users}}. The decision these personas will inform: {{decision}}.
**Constraints**
- Base every persona on the research supplied. Invent no demographics.
- Describe goals, constraints and current workarounds — not age, hobbies or a stock photo.
- Each persona must imply a different product decision. Merge any two that do not.
- State what you do not know about each one.
- Do not invent sources, citations, statistics, quotations, or study results. Fabricated references are the single worst failure mode for this task.
- Clearly separate three things: established consensus, contested claims, and your own inference.
- Where you are working from training data rather than a supplied document, say so and flag that details may be out of date.
**Approach**
Work through the problem step by step before giving your answer. Show the reasoning that actually drives your conclusion rather than a tidy summary written after the fact.
**Output format**
Respond in Markdown. Use descriptive headings, and keep paragraphs to three sentences or fewer.
**Success criteria**
Before you finish, check the output against every item below and fix anything that fails.
- Each persona would lead to a different answer on the stated decision.
**Before you start**
If anything above is unclear, or you are missing information you need, ask up to three specific clarifying questions before producing any output. Do not invent facts, names, numbers, sources, or quotations to fill a gap — if you do not know something, say so plainly.
Now, create user personas for {{product}}.Common questions
- Are user personas actually useful?
- When grounded in research and built around goals and constraints, yes. When invented — a name, a stock photo, a fictional daily routine — they launder assumptions into something that looks like evidence.
- How many personas should a product have?
- As many as imply genuinely different decisions, which is usually two or three. If two personas would lead you to build the same thing, they are the same persona wearing different names.
- Which AI model is best for creating user personas?
- All of them handle this; what changes is the packaging. This page shows the same prompt written for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini. Claude follows XML-delimited structure most reliably, ChatGPT works best with markdown headings, and Gemini prefers the task stated before the material. The content of the prompt is identical in each.
- Can I change this prompt for my own situation?
- Yes, and you should. Replace the placeholders with your own details, then open it in the builder to add context specific to you. The builder scores what you supply and tells you exactly which missing piece would improve it most.
- Why does this prompt include rules I did not ask for?
- Because research tasks carry requirements that experienced practitioners apply automatically and rarely write down. The compiler adds them so the output does not fail on something obvious. Every added rule is listed on the how it works page.
Related prompts
- AI prompt for writing user stories
- AI prompt for writing release notes
- AI prompt for writing error messages
- AI prompt for writing YouTube titles and thumbnails
- AI prompt for writing a grant application
- AI prompt for doing a competitor analysis
Browse all ready-made prompts, the full prompt library, or read the guides.