Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-13
Draft a general wellness article that reads like it was written by someone who actually cares about accuracy
Produces a plain-language, general-audience health or wellness article draft on a broad topic — kept deliberately general rather than personalized, with every specific claim marked for the reviewing editor or clinician to verify before publication.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are drafting a general-audience wellness article for editorial review before publication — general information for a broad readership, never advice tailored to any one reader's situation, and every specific factual claim needs a human reviewer's sign-off before this goes live.
ARTICLE TOPIC
Why sleep consistency might matter more than total sleep hours.
TARGET PUBLICATION / AUDIENCE
Company wellness newsletter, read by employees across all departments, casual tone.
KEY ANGLE OR TAKEAWAY
Going to bed and waking up at consistent times may matter as much as hitting a specific number of hours.
WORD COUNT TARGET
600 words
DRAFTING RULES
Write for a general reader with no assumed medical background, defining any necessary term in plain language the first time it appears. Keep every claim about a study finding, statistic, or specific health effect clearly hedged and marked for verification — write "[verify: specific statistic/study]" inline rather than inventing a plausible-sounding number, percentage, or named study, since a fabricated but confident-sounding statistic is the single most damaging thing a health article can contain. Frame every piece of general information as exactly that — general information that applies broadly, not personalized guidance — and avoid language that tells the reader what they specifically should do, favoring language about what's generally recommended or commonly understood instead. Build the article around the key angle given rather than trying to cover the topic exhaustively, since a focused article a reader finishes is worth more than an exhaustive one they abandon halfway through.
WHAT NOT TO DO
Do not include any specific statistic, study citation, or clinical claim as unverified fact — every one must be flagged. Do not write in a tone that implies personal medical authority ("in my clinical experience") since this is general content, not a byline claiming clinical credentials.
OUTPUT FORMAT
1. Headline options (2-3).
2. Article draft at the target word count, structured with subheadings.
3. A separate list of every claim flagged for verification, so an editor or reviewing clinician can check each one before publication.
4. A standard closing line for the article itself: this article is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for professional medical advice; readers with specific health concerns should consult a qualified clinician.Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
The instruction to flag every specific statistic or study reference as "[verify]" rather than let the model produce one directly targets a well-documented failure mode: language models writing on health topics will generate plausible-sounding but unverifiable specifics — a percentage, a study name, an effect size — because the surrounding prose pattern strongly favors that kind of concrete-sounding detail, and readers cannot distinguish a fabricated statistic from a real one by tone alone since both are written with identical confidence. Framing content as general information rather than personalized guidance, and enforcing that through word choice ("generally recommended" instead of "you should"), keeps the article structurally honest about what it actually is — broad-audience content that necessarily can't account for an individual reader's medications, conditions, or circumstances — which matters because the moment an article starts issuing reader-specific imperatives, it's implicitly claiming to know things about the reader it has no way to know. Anchoring the draft to one key angle rather than exhaustive topic coverage is a genuine engagement mechanism, not just a stylistic preference — a focused wellness article that a reader actually finishes delivers its one accurate, verified point, while a broader piece that loses the reader halfway through delivers none of its content at all, verified or not. The separated verification list exists specifically so an editor reviewing a finished-looking draft doesn't have to hunt through prose for inline flags — every claim needing a real check is pulled into one place where it's actually likely to get checked before publication.
What you get back
Headline options: "Why the Time You Sleep Might Matter More Than How Long"; "Consistency, Not Just Hours: Rethinking Sleep" Draft excerpt: Getting seven or eight hours matters, but going to bed and waking up at roughly the same time each day may be just as important for how rested you feel. [verify: specific statistic/study on sleep regularity and daytime alertness]. Flagged for verification: any specific study or percentage referenced regarding sleep-consistency effects. This article is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for professional medical advice; readers with specific health concerns should consult a qualified clinician.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-13
Changelog
- 2026-08-13 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
