Start here

Paste your text into an ordinary AI chat that accepts text. Copy the full original prompt (appended below), then add three parts in this order:

1. ASSIGNMENT BRIEF — the complete text of the brief: task, learning goals, constraints, rubric, format, word or time limits.
2. REVIEWER CONTEXT (optional) — who the reviewers are, how long they have, whether their comments count toward a grade.
3. REVIEW FORMAT — written comments, a live session, a template, or your choice.

If the brief is missing or contradictory, the prompt stops and asks for what is needed. Run it, then check the output with the Review checks below.

What this prompt is for

Peer feedback often turns into vague praise. This original TokRepo prompt builds a compact sheet: brief snapshot, criteria table, reviewer questions, fill-in sentence starters, a session plan and a gaps list. Every criterion points back to a brief section or is labelled [inferred - verify].

Checking the output

• Traceability — each criterion row names a brief section or carries the inferred label.
• No invented standards — no points, weights, deadlines or policies beyond the brief.
• Blanks — every sentence starter has something to fill in.
• Length — 10–20 questions; sheet fits two pages.
• Boundary — the sheet never claims to submit, share or change a file.

FAQ

What if my brief has no rubric? The prompt adds generic criteria like clarity or structure, labels each [inferred - verify], and lists the undefined points as neutral questions for the author or instructor.

Is my brief kept private? The prompt only prepares comments in the chat. Treat drafts as you would any course material and review anything sensitive before pasting.

Limits and attribution

Source reviewed; runtime not tested. Original TokRepo prompt, CC BY 4.0; the linked reference retains its own rights. The fictional 900-word example shows the expected output shape only — it is not a test result.

Source: ChatGPT release notes (reviewed 2026-10-04).

Complete reusable prompt

Peer-Review Prompt Sheet Builder

You are helping me turn an assignment brief into a peer-review prompt sheet that real reviewers can use to give specific, useful feedback. I will paste the assignment brief. You will produce criteria, questions and sentence starters that are traceable to that brief. Do not invent requirements, point values, deadline rules or grading standards that the brief does not state.

My input

Paste, in this order:

1. ASSIGNMENT BRIEF: the full text of the brief (task description, learning goals, constraints, rubric, submission format, word or time limits).
2. REVIEWER CONTEXT (optional): who the reviewers are (classmates, colleagues, beginners), how long they have, and whether the final grade uses their comments.
3. REVIEW FORMAT: written comments, a live session, a template to fill in, or my choice.

If the brief is missing, contradictory or too vague to derive criteria, stop and list exactly what I must supply or clarify before you continue.

What to produce

1. Brief snapshot

In 3-6 bullet points, restate only facts the brief states: deliverable, purpose, audience, limits and any stated evaluation criteria. Mark each bullet [from brief] or [inferred - verify]. Put nothing in this section that the brief does not support.

2. Criteria table

One row per review criterion. Columns:

• Criterion (plain-language name)
• What it means in this assignment (one sentence, tied to the brief)
• Look-for evidence (what a reviewer can point to in the work)
• Common miss (the gap reviewers usually overlook)
• Source (brief section or [inferred - verify])

Derive 4-8 criteria. Prefer criteria the brief actually names. If the brief names fewer than four, you may add generic ones such as clarity, structure or evidence, but label each as [inferred - verify] and place them after the brief-based rows. Never assign weights or point values unless the brief states them.

3. Reviewer question set

For each criterion, write 2-3 open questions a reviewer can ask. Questions must invite description of what is on the page, not taste judgments. Avoid yes/no questions. Keep the full set to roughly 10-20 questions so it stays usable in one review session.

4. Sentence starters

For each criterion, give 2 fill-in-the-blank starters, one for a strength and one for a gap. Cover these four moves across the set:

• Point to a specific place: "In the paragraph where ..., I noticed ..."
• Name the effect on me: "As a reader, this made me ..."
• Offer a next step: "One way to strengthen this would be ..."
• Ask a real question: "What were you trying to show when ...?" Every starter must include a blank or bracket the reviewer fills from the actual work. No starter may praise or criticize without pointing to a location.

5. Review session plan

A short sequence for one review: read the work once without comments, note reactions, then work criterion by criterion; aim for at least two strengths and two gaps; end with one prioritized next step chosen by the author, not the reviewer. State a suggested time split and a line for reviewers to record how long drafting and reviewing actually took, if they want to.

6. Feedback hygiene

A short do/don't list: comment on the work not the person; quote or paraphrase the exact passage; separate what the brief requires from personal preference; do not rewrite the whole piece; flag uncertainty rather than guessing intent. Note clearly that reviewers should not change the author's file, and that this sheet only prepares comments - it does not submit, share or send anything.

7. Gaps and uncertainties

List anything the brief leaves undefined (for example, whether citations are required, how sources count, whether the format is flexible). For each gap, give one neutral question the reviewer can ask the author or instructor instead of assuming an answer.

Output style

Use Markdown with headings and tables. Keep the whole sheet compact enough to print on two pages. No flattery, no filler, no bullet that merely repeats another. Do not write the author's feedback for them; produce the tool reviewers use.

Review checks before I use the sheet

Run these checks yourself and report pass or fail for each, with the fix if it fails:

1. Traceability: every criterion row names a brief section or is labelled [inferred - verify].
2. No invented standards: no points, weights, deadlines or policies appear that the brief did not state.
3. Blank requirement: every sentence starter contains a fill-in blank or bracket.
4. Length: the question set is 10-20 questions; the whole sheet fits the two-page target.
5. Action clarity: the session plan tells a reviewer what to do first, second and last.
6. Boundary: the sheet never claims to submit, share, schedule or modify anything.

Worked example

FICTIONAL INPUT: Assignment brief for a 900-word community proposal: "Describe a local problem, propose one solution, use at least two sources, address one objection." Reviewer context: first-year students, 20 minutes each. Expected output shape: Brief snapshot bullets (deliverable, length, source minimum, objection requirement, all [from brief]); a criteria table row for source use with look-for evidence "author names and applies each source," common miss "source quoted but not connected to the proposal," source "brief: use at least two sources"; questions such as "Which sentence shows how your first source shaped the proposal?"; starters such as "In the section where you describe the problem, I noticed [specific detail], which made me wonder ..."; a 20-minute plan (5 read, 10 comment, 5 discuss); a gap row noting the brief does not say what citation style is expected, with a neutral question to the instructor. PASS/FAIL CHECKS ON THE EXAMPLE: Traceability passes only if the source-use row cites the brief line and the citation-style gap is listed as undefined rather than guessed. The blank check fails if any starter is a finished compliment like "great use of sources" with nothing to fill in. The no-invented-standards check fails if the sheet adds a point value for sources that the brief never gave. The length check fails if the questions expand past 20 or the sheet sprawls beyond two pages.

Start by asking for the assignment brief if I have not pasted it, then produce the sheet in the order above.

References and reuse

• ChatGPT release notes · Reviewed 2026-10-04

Original TokRepo prompt · CC BY 4.0. Reference documents retain their own rights.