Follow a Task Sequence

Connect existing prompts, with clear inputs, outputs and handoffs at each step.

Start with the material listed for your task. Run each prompt in your AI assistant, review the result, then use the same conversation or supply the relevant reviewed output at the next step.

Turn a Program Narrative into a Checked Logframe

Start With: Your program narrative, intended participants, setting, constraints and any existing evidence about how change happens.

  1. 1. Draft a Theory of Change from a Program Narrative

    Provide: Provide the actual program narrative and intended long-term outcome. Distinguish agreed facts from proposals.

    Result: A draft theory of change with causal links, assumptions and open questions.

  2. 2. Review My Theory of Change

    Provide: Supply the draft theory of change, original narrative and available supporting evidence.

    Result: Located weaknesses and proposed improvements to the causal logic.

  3. 3. Generate a Logframe from an Existing Theory of Change

    Provide: Revise the theory of change using the review, then provide it with any agreed measurement requirements.

    Result: A logframe linked to the reviewed theory of change, with unknown values labeled.

  4. 4. Review My Logframe

    Provide: Provide the draft logframe, reviewed theory of change and any actual donor or program requirements.

    Result: A check of results, indicators, verification sources and assumptions, with revision priorities.

Before You Finish: Keep the reviewed theory of change and logframe together. Resolve or label unknown baselines, targets and assumptions before using the framework.

Draft and Check a Donor Report

Start With: Your reporting period, actual progress and financial records, source documents, audience and any supplied donor template or requirements.

  1. 1. Extract Key Findings from a Document

    Provide: Provide the actual monitoring documents or updates and the reporting question. Keep dates and source locations available.

    Result: Source-linked findings and limitations that can support the report.

  2. 2. Draft a Progress Report

    Provide: Supply the reviewed findings, underlying records, reporting period and actual reporting requirements.

    Result: A progress-report draft that separates supported achievements, challenges and missing evidence.

  3. 3. Review a Donor Progress Report

    Provide: Provide the draft report, source records and any donor requirements actually available.

    Result: Evidence and compliance findings, with a prioritized revision list.

Before You Finish: Use the review to revise the report. Verify figures and citations against the records and retain unresolved evidence gaps.

Prepare a Survey for Piloting

Start With: Your study questions, target population, sampling access, fieldwork constraints, language needs and relevant ethical requirements.

  1. 1. Design a Sampling Strategy

    Provide: Provide the study purpose, population, available frame and practical constraints. State what is still unknown.

    Result: A sampling approach with its assumptions, feasibility limits and required decisions.

  2. 2. Design a Household Survey

    Provide: Supply the research questions, agreed population and sampling approach, measurement needs and interview constraints.

    Result: A draft household questionnaire with relevant structure and response options.

  3. 3. Review a Survey Instrument

    Provide: Provide the full draft instrument, study questions, intended respondents and actual administration conditions.

    Result: Question, flow, inclusion and feasibility issues, with proposed revisions.

  4. 4. Design an Instrument Pilot Test

    Provide: Revise the questionnaire first, then provide it with the intended languages, participants and field conditions.

    Result: A pilot-test plan with checks, feedback records and revision decisions.

Before You Finish: Review the proposed instrument and pilot plan with the responsible team. Complete required approvals and the actual pilot before field deployment.

Turn Interview Findings into a Learning Brief

Start With: De-identified transcripts or excerpts, research questions, sampling context, consent restrictions and a suitable structured coding approach. Include other relevant M&E evidence for the final brief.

  1. 1. Draft a Qualitative Coding Frame

    Provide: Provide the research questions, transcript excerpts and any existing conceptual or coding framework.

    Result: A draft coding frame with definitions, boundaries and application guidance.

  2. 2. Analyze Qualitative Data with Structured Coding

    Provide: Review the coding frame, then provide it with the actual de-identified transcripts and analysis questions.

    Result: Coded evidence, patterns, divergent accounts and analytic limitations.

  3. 3. Review Findings for Evidence Strength

    Provide: Supply the draft claims, their coded excerpts and relevant sampling and collection limitations.

    Result: A review of claim support, conflicting evidence and needed qualifications.

  4. 4. Create a Learning Brief

    Provide: Revise the claims using the review, then provide the supported findings, other relevant M&E sources, citations, limitations, audience and decision date.

    Result: A learning brief connecting supported program findings and limitations to a concrete decision.

Before You Finish: Verify every major claim against the underlying excerpts. Protect identities, retain divergent accounts and distinguish interpretation from established evidence.

Prepare and Check an Evaluation Inception Draft

Start With: The program description, evaluation purpose and users, available evidence, decision needs, timetable, resources and any agreed evaluation requirements.

  1. 1. Draft Evaluation Terms of Reference

    Provide: Provide the actual evaluation purpose, program context, intended use and practical constraints.

    Result: Draft terms of reference with explicit requirements and unresolved decisions.

  2. 2. Review ToR Readiness

    Provide: Supply the draft terms of reference and the evidence and constraints needed to judge feasibility.

    Result: Readiness gaps and priority changes before commissioning or design proceeds.

  3. 3. Design an Evaluation Matrix

    Provide: Revise and agree the terms of reference first, then provide the evaluation questions, evidence access and design constraints.

    Result: A matrix connecting questions, judgment criteria, evidence, methods and analysis.

  4. 4. Draft an Evaluation Inception Report

    Provide: After commissioning, provide the agreed terms of reference, reviewed evaluation matrix, design decisions, actual team capacity and access arrangements.

    Result: An inception-report draft that makes methods, workplan, responsibilities and limitations explicit.

  5. 5. Review an Inception Report

    Provide: Supply the inception draft, agreed terms of reference and supporting design and workplan material.

    Result: Located design and feasibility findings, with prioritized revisions.

Before You Finish: Resolve the readiness and inception-review findings with the responsible parties. A draft does not replace approval of scope, methods, access or ethics.

Plan a Learning and Reflection Cycle

Start With: Your program decisions, learning questions, available evidence, participants, timetable and capacity to act on learning.

  1. 1. Create a Learning Agenda

    Provide: Provide the decisions the program needs to make, existing uncertainties and evidence already available.

    Result: Prioritized learning questions linked to evidence, responsibilities and decision opportunities.

  2. 2. Draft a Pause and Reflect Session Guide

    Provide: Provide the reviewed learning questions, available evidence, participants, facilitation constraints and decisions the session should inform.

    Result: A reflection-session guide with evidence prompts and decision capture.

  3. 3. Create a Data Use Plan

    Provide: Provide the agenda, planned reflection process, decision owners and their authority, available datasets, quality limits, access and data-protection rules, and the actual evidence-production timetable.

    Result: A practical plan connecting evidence and reflection to decisions, responsibilities and follow-up.

Before You Finish: Confirm who will convene the session, provide evidence and act on each decision. Record actual session findings only after the reflection takes place.