Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-12
Draft one RFP response section that answers exactly what was asked before adding anything else
Drafts a single RFP question-and-response pair so the answer directly and completely addresses the literal question asked first, with supporting detail added only after that, instead of a marketing paragraph that dodges the actual ask.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
Draft my response to one RFP question. The evaluator scoring this is checking whether I directly answered what was literally asked — so that has to happen first, cleanly, before anything else gets added. EXACT RFP QUESTION "Does your platform support SSO via SAML 2.0 for enterprise customers? (Yes/No, 100 words max)" OUR ACTUAL CAPABILITY RELATED TO THIS QUESTION Yes, SAML 2.0 SSO is supported and has been in production for 18 months, currently used by 40+ enterprise accounts. ANY LIMITATION OR PARTIAL GAP SCIM-based auto-provisioning isn't available yet; SSO itself works fully but user provisioning is currently manual on our side. FORMAT/LENGTH CONSTRAINTS FROM THE RFP Yes/No answer required first, followed by no more than 100 words of explanation. COMPETITIVE CONTEXT (IF RELEVANT) This has been a standard capability for us far longer than most competitors in this RFP have offered it. Structure the response as: a direct, literal answer to the question in the first one or two sentences — if the question is yes/no or asks for a specific capability, that answer must be unambiguous and appear before any elaboration, because an evaluator scanning quickly needs to find it immediately, not infer it from a paragraph of context. After the direct answer, add supporting detail that substantiates the claim with specifics from what I've told you. If there's a known limitation or partial gap, disclose it plainly rather than burying it or omitting it — an RFP evaluator who later discovers an undisclosed gap during implementation treats it far worse than a gap disclosed upfront with a stated workaround. If competitive context is relevant, address it only by demonstrating our specific strength, never by naming or disparaging a competitor. Respect the stated format and length constraints exactly — if the RFP asks for a yes/no plus a 100-word explanation, do not deliver a 400-word essay. Do not invent a certification, integration, or capability I haven't confirmed I have — if the honest answer is "partially" or "not yet," write that, with a factual workaround if one exists, rather than stretching toward a confident yes. Output just the response text, formatted exactly to the constraint given, ready to paste into the RFP document.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
Requiring the literal answer to appear in the first sentence, before any elaboration, directly counters how a language model defaults to answering yes/no questions in open-ended writing tasks — it tends to build up to the answer through context and qualification, which reads as evasive to an RFP evaluator who is often scoring dozens of responses against a checklist and needs the answer locatable in seconds, not inferable from a paragraph. The instruction to disclose a known limitation plainly rather than omit or bury it is the single highest-leverage rule in this prompt, because RFP responses are the rare sales document that gets checked against reality during implementation — an undisclosed gap discovered after signing damages trust and can trigger contractual disputes in a way a disclosed gap with a stated workaround never does, so the model needs to be explicitly told that honesty here is a competitive advantage, not a liability, or it will default to the confident, gap-free tone most persuasive writing defaults to. The strict format and length adherence matters because RFP scoring is frequently mechanical — many evaluators or their software literally check whether an answer fits the requested shape — and a model asked to "draft a strong response" without an explicit length constraint will reliably over-write, producing a technically excellent paragraph that fails the RFP's actual scoring rubric on format alone. Banning invented certifications or capabilities addresses the highest-stakes fabrication risk in this whole prompt set: an RFP response is frequently incorporated by reference into the eventual contract, so a confidently invented "yes" here is not just misleading copy, it can become a real, and false, contractual claim.
What you get back
Yes. Our platform has supported SAML 2.0 SSO in production for over 18 months and is currently used by 40+ enterprise accounts for authentication. SCIM-based auto-provisioning is not yet available; user provisioning is currently handled manually by our onboarding team as part of implementation, with automated provisioning on our public roadmap.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-12
Changelog
- 2026-08-12 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — Google Ads management, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE GOOGLE ADS MANAGEMENT
