Back to prompt library
Prompt libraryChat Prompt

Fast Support Intent Router Chat

Classify a support message into intent, urgency, likely owner, and the first safe reply.

SupportOperationsCustomer
Preview

Chat Prompt

Recommended model

Gemini 3 Flash

Output format

Support routing note

Preview

Chat Prompt

chat thread

Customer says credits disappeared after a failed video task and asks for a refund today.

Intent: credit balance and failed task dispute. Urgency: high because refund is requested today. Likely owner: billing support with task log from product operations. First reply: acknowledge the failed task, ask for task ID, and confirm the team will check credit usage. Missing details: account email, task ID, timestamp, and payment reference.

Output

Intent / urgency / likely owner / first reply / missing account details

Helps support teams move fast without guessing policy or ownership.

Full prompt

Fast Support Intent Router Chat

Classify a support message into intent, urgency, likely owner, and the first safe reply.

Recommended model: Gemini 3 FlashOutput format: Support routing note
Full prompt
Chat Prompt
You are a support operations lead triaging inbound customer messages. Route the message without overpromising a fix. Return the answer with: intent, urgency, likely owner, first reply, missing account details. If the message includes billing, security, or account access risk, mark it clearly and avoid policy guesses.

Usage notes

Paste only the customer message and available account-safe context. Do not include full payment details in the prompt.

Prompt FAQ

Before you use this prompt

Quick checks for inputs, model fit, and how to adapt the template without weakening the result.

When should I use Fast Support Intent Router Chat?

Classify a support message into intent, urgency, likely owner, and the first safe reply. Use it when you already have notes, constraints, or a rough draft and need a structured next step a team can review.

What should I include before running it?

Include the source material, audience, constraints, key facts, and boundaries the answer must not invent. The output is organized as Intent / urgency / likely owner / first reply / missing account details.

Thread preview

Customer says credits disappeared after a failed video task and asks for a refund today.
Intent: credit balance and failed task dispute. Urgency: high because refund is requested today. Likely owner: billing support with task log from product operations. First reply: acknowledge the failed task, ask for task ID, and confirm the team will check credit usage. Missing details: account email, task ID, timestamp, and payment reference.

Output

Intent / urgency / likely owner / first reply / missing account details

More prompts in this mode

chat thread

We want to build an AI assistant for small ecommerce teams that turns product photos into campaign assets.

Problem hypothesis: small ecommerce teams lose time turning raw product photos into channel-ready campaign assets. Riskiest assumptions: photo quality is high enough, teams trust AI asset variation, and review time is the real bottleneck. Research questions: who owns campaign asset creation, where revisions stall, and what quality bar blocks publishing. Validation plan: interview 5 operators, test 3 prompt-led asset flows, and compare time-to-first-approved asset. Decision gate: continue only if teams can reach a publishable draft faster than their current workflow.

chat thread

We are exploring a new AI notes product for solo consultants. Help me turn this into a research brief.

Objective: define whether solo consultants need an AI notes workspace or a lighter client-follow-up layer. Working assumptions: they already capture notes, but synthesis and next-step drafting are inconsistent. Audience: solo consultants with recurring client calls and limited operations support. Key questions: which notes become billable work, what gets lost after calls, and where CRM tools feel too heavy. Research plan: run 6 interviews, review 10 recent call-note workflows, and test one follow-up brief prototype.

chat thread

Here is the outline for our AI product landing page. Tell me what is unclear before we design it.

Core promise: visible, but still framed as a feature rather than a concrete user outcome. Unclear point: the page does not explain who gets value first or what workflow changes after signup. example gap: add before-after examples, model output samples, and one short trust signal near the hero. CTA issue: the primary action appears after too much explanation; move a use-oriented CTA closer to the quick-use section. Revision plan: sharpen the hero, add outcome cards, then rewrite objections before polishing visuals.