I just got criticism that's killing me. Help me process it without spiraling or shutting down — and tell me which parts are real and which are noise.
THE CRITICISM (paste it word for word if possible): {paste}
FROM WHO: {boss / peer / customer / random_internet_person / family}
CONTEXT: {what_was_being_evaluated}
MY GUT REACTION: {ashamed / angry / defensive / numb / wanting_to_quit}
IS THIS PERSON USUALLY FAIR?: {yes / mixed / no / first_time}
WHAT'S TRUE IN IT (force yourself — what is at least 10% true): {anything}
WHAT'S NOT TRUE OR UNFAIR: {anything}
WALK ME THROUGH:
1. **Quick triage** — is this safety/quality/feedback worth my attention, or is it personality/style noise to ignore?
2. **Filter the signal** — pull out the SINGLE most-actionable thing inside the criticism. (If there isn't one, say so.)
3. **Drop the noise** — explicitly list which 2-3 things in the criticism I should not internalize.
4. **The emotional separation move** — a one-sentence reframe that lets me hold the truth without becoming the criticism.
5. **A reply (if I need to send one)** — short, mature, non-defensive.
6. **24-hour and 7-day check-in plan** — when to revisit the criticism with a clearer head.
No 'haters gonna hate' platitudes. No 'consider the source' deflections. Real, useful, honest.0 copies·0 saves·1 views
213 words·1,300 chars
Sample output
Criticism (from a peer in a Slack channel): 'Honestly, this whole PRD is a mess. You don't actually understand the user. You're shipping fast for shipping's sake.'
Context: I sent a product spec for review. This person and I have history — they've been promoted-passed-over twice and are tense.
Gut reaction: ashamed + want to argue back publicly. Person is usually mixed — sometimes right, often delivered badly. What's true: I did rush the user-research section. What's not true: the PRD is not 'a mess' — 4 other reviewers gave it positive feedback.
1. Triage: This is partially signal, mostly noise — wrapped in personal frustration. Don't ignore it; don't internalize it.
2. Signal — single most-actionable item: The user-research section is genuinely thin. You knew it before they said it. Fix that section before the next review.
3. Noise to drop:
4. Emotional separation: 'One section in this doc is weak. That's not the same as me being a bad PM.' (Hold the part that's true; refuse the global label.)
Parameters
Text generation parameters
FAQ
Always sleep before responding to harsh criticism in writing. The reply you draft at 11pm is the one you'll wish you hadn't sent at 7am. The prompt targets Claude Sonnet and lives in the Personal & Career category on mycopyprompt.
This prompt is written for Claude Sonnet. It's a text/chat prompt — paste it into Claude Sonnet (or compatible LLMs like Claude or GPT-4) to get the expected output.
1. Click the Copy button on this page to copy the full prompt. 2. Open Claude Sonnet. 3. Paste the prompt into a new conversation. 4. Replace any {placeholders} with your specifics, then send. Most prompts produce the right output on the first try; complex ones may need 1-2 iterations.
Yes — every prompt on mycopyprompt is free forever. No paywall, no signup wall for browsing or copying. You can use it for personal or commercial work, just don't redistribute the entire mycopyprompt library.
Absolutely — most prompts are templates. Look for {placeholders} (curly braces) and swap them with your own values. You can also reword sections, add constraints, or chain it with other prompts.
See the "Sample output" panel above — that's a real example of what Claude Sonnet returns when this prompt runs. Your output will vary in wording but should follow the same structure and depth.
Similar prompts
Matched against every prompt in the catalog by title.
5. Reply (in Slack, public — match the channel they criticized in):
'Fair point on the user-research section — I rushed it. I'll tighten it before the next review and add the customer-quotes I left out. Open to a 15-min call if you want to dig into specifics there. The 'shipping fast for shipping's sake' part doesn't match my read of the doc — happy to chat on that separately.'
Why this reply works: accepts the real critique, names the boundary on the unfair part, offers a constructive follow-up without being defensive. Public-ness matches the public criticism — doesn't let it hang.
6. Check-ins: