50 free VC and investor prompts across 5 categories of 10 prompts each. Calibrated for the investor who writes IC memos, runs reference calls, and produces decision-grade portfolio reviews. Each prompt produces a sourcing decision, a diligence framework, a portfolio call, an exit memo, or an LP communication. Banned phrases include "founder-friendly", "high-conviction bet", "10x asset", "thesis-driven", "operator VC", "value-add capital", "founder-first", "smart money", "differentiated capital", "based capital", "20x outcome", "the next decacorn".
Pairs with the 8-Component Skeleton framework for the diligence and portfolio categories and the Operator Pack for the portfolio and exit categories. Free, no email gate.
For the investor, not the influencer
The VC-content genre on Twitter and LinkedIn has produced ten thousand threads about founder support, conviction, and "how I source deals" without a single named IC memo or reference call structure. Real investors write boring IC memos with named risks, run structured reference calls with specific questions, and produce LP letters that name the down rounds before the LPs hear about them from elsewhere. The threads describe a vibe; the memos make a call. This pack is calibrated for the people who write the memos.
Six dimensions of difference between the investor voice and the VC-influencer voice. Substance: the investor names the specific deal, founder, or risk; the influencer names the disposition (high-conviction, founder-first, value-add). Risks: the investor names the top three risks before the partnership meeting; the influencer names the upside and skips the risks. Numbers: the investor opens with the unit economics; the influencer opens with the founder story. Track record: the investor names the misses honestly; the influencer features only the winners. Tone: the investor writes flat memos; the influencer writes narrative arcs. Audience: the investor writes for the IC, the LPAC, and the LP letter; the influencer writes for the algorithm.
Both voices exist in the wild. Only one survives the 10-year fund cycle. The pack is calibrated for the first; it explicitly rejects the second at the prompt level by banning the genre's signature phrases inline. The result is output that reads like an IC memo from a partner who has run the numbers, not a thread from a personal-brand investor who has not.
Five categories. The investor workflow end to end.
The five categories map to the five operating disciplines that determine whether a fund compounds or accumulates dispersion. Deal Sourcing and Pipeline comes first because no diligence work matters if the deal flow is wrong. Diligence and Investment Memos comes second because the IC memo is the structural artifact of fund discipline. Portfolio Management and Support comes third because the support work is what differentiates funds in the eyes of LPs and founders. Exit Strategy and Returns comes fourth because exits are how funds compound rather than just deploy. LP Communications and Fund Strategy comes fifth because the LP relationship is the scarce resource at fund cycle 2 and beyond.
Most VCs who fail to compound do so by skipping the unglamorous categories: rejected-deal analysis, post-exit reviews, loss memos, LP letter discipline, reserve allocation. The thread-genre VC skips these in favor of "thesis posts" and conference highlights; the actual investor does these because they are the leverage.
Category 01: Deal Sourcing and Pipeline
Ten prompts for the deal sourcing and pipeline work that determines whether the fund sees the right deals at the right time. The shape: inbound triage that does not waste partner time, outbound campaigns with named kill criteria, conference prep that converts to first calls, network mapping that closes the structural gaps. Reject the 'thesis-driven sourcing' framing that produces threads but not deals.
Pairs with: 8-Component Skeleton framework
1. Inbound deal triage memo
Inbound this week: [paste with company, stage, sector, founder, signal]. Time available: [paste hours]. Draft a 300-word triage: the 3 deals deserving a first call (with the named signal that earned the slot), the 5 worth a 5-minute review and warm reject, the rest declined with reason logged, the time allocation for next week. Inbound triage that gives equal time to every deal wastes the partnership's scarcest resource.
2. Outbound sourcing campaign
Thesis: [paste]. Target criteria: [paste stage, geography, signal]. Horizon: [paste, e.g. 90 days]. Draft a 400-word sourcing memo: the named target list with the qualifying signal for each, the partner-ranked priority, the outreach sequence (warm intro first, cold second, conference third), the success metric (first calls held, not touches sent), the kill criterion. Outbound sourcing without a kill criterion produces busywork.
3. Conference prep memo
Conference: [paste dates, location]. Target companies attending: [paste]. Personal goals: [paste, e.g. 5 first calls, 3 LP touches, 2 deal accelerations]. Draft a 400-word prep: the daily target list (3 first-priority, 5 second-priority), the message per meeting type (sourcing vs LP vs co-investor), the post-meeting note discipline (within 24 hours, into the CRM, with the next action), the follow-up schedule. Conference time is expensive; this prompt converts it to deal flow.
4. Cold outreach to founder
Founder: [paste with company, why interesting, triggering signal]. Stage: [paste]. Path in: [paste, e.g. mutual connection, conference, direct]. Draft a 200-word cold outreach: the specific reference proving I read the company (not 'love what you're building'), the question that earns a response (not 'would love to chat'), one credibility signal (specific relevant prior work), the ask (15 minutes, specific times offered). Cold outreach that gets read names something specific in the first sentence.
5. Network mapping for sourcing
Sector or thesis: [paste]. Existing network in this area: [paste names if known]. Gap: [paste, e.g. underrepresented geography, missing seed signal]. Draft a 400-word network mapping memo: the 10 highest-leverage people to know in this sector ranked by likely deal flow, the path to each (cold, warm intro through X, conference), the relationship investment required (one breakfast a quarter, monthly check-in), the 90-day plan to close the gap. Network gaps that linger for two years cost real deals.
6. Deal flow analytics review
Deal flow this quarter: [paste, e.g. 200 inbound, 50 outbound, 80 first calls, 30 IC reviews, 5 term sheets, 3 closed]. Conversion benchmarks: [paste fund-level if known]. Draft a 300-word deal flow analytics memo: the conversion funnel honestly read (where the leaks are: sourcing volume, first-call quality, IC selectivity, win rate), the hypothesis for the leak, the action for next quarter, the benchmark we are missing. Deal flow analytics that show only volume metrics miss conversion.
7. Rejected deal log analysis
Rejected deals this quarter: [paste with reason for each]. Reasons categorized: [paste counts by reason, e.g. wrong stage, wrong sector, wrong terms, founder concerns, business model, competitive]. Draft a 300-word rejected deal analysis: the most common rejection reason and what it implies for sourcing, the cases where 'wrong stage' might be sourcing miscalibration, the founders worth re-engaging in 12 months, the systematic improvement to filter earlier. Rejected deal logs that go unanalyzed produce repeated rejection of the same shape of deal.
8. Sector landscape brief
Sector: [paste, e.g. AI infrastructure, fintech vertical X, climate Y]. Time horizon: [paste, e.g. 12 months]. Existing knowledge: [paste]. Draft a 600-word sector brief: the 5 most important companies (incumbent and challenger), the technology shifts driving the sector now, the demand-side dynamics, the investor positioning (who's deployed where), the 3 sub-themes worth pursuing for sourcing, the 2 themes to deprioritize. Sector briefs that read like Wikipedia summaries produce no sourcing leverage; this version names the sub-themes.
9. Founder LinkedIn signal review
Founder: [paste]. Their LinkedIn activity over past 6 months: [paste posts and engagement signals]. Draft a 300-word LinkedIn signal review: the activity that suggests the company is gaining traction (specific posts, hire announcements, customer mentions), the activity that suggests the founder is fundraising soon (specific patterns), the signal about founder communication ability (operator voice vs influencer voice), the action implied (reach out now, monitor for fundraising signal, deprioritize). LinkedIn signal reads better than founder calendar bookings.
10. Deal allocation request memo
Deal: [paste]. Allocation requested: [paste percent or dollar amount]. Fund stage: [paste, e.g. early in fund 2, late in fund 3]. Draft a 400-word allocation request memo for partner discussion: the conviction level honestly stated (high, medium, marginal), the three key risks named, the allocation rationale tied to fund stage and pacing, the alternative if allocation is reduced (smaller check, observer, pass), the comparison to recent allocations of similar conviction. Allocation requests without conviction calibration produce inconsistent fund construction.
Category 02: Diligence and Investment Memos
Ten prompts for the diligence and IC memo work that determines whether the fund's investment decisions are calibrated. The shape: stage-appropriate diligence frameworks, IC memos that name the actual bet, reference calls that produce signal, cap table reads that catch the structural concerns. Reject the 'high-conviction bet' framing that produces decisions without named risks.
Pairs with: 8-Component Skeleton framework
11. Diligence framework for early-stage
Stage: pre-seed or seed. Sector: [paste]. Initial signal: [paste]. Draft a 500-word diligence framework: the founder questions (background, motivation, learning velocity, judgment under pressure), the market questions (size, timing, why now), the product questions (insight, defensibility, customer pain), the business model questions (unit economics if any, GTM hypothesis), the timeline (first call, second call, reference calls, IC) and the kill criterion at each stage. Early-stage diligence that copies growth-stage frameworks misses the actual signal.
12. Diligence framework for growth-stage
Stage: Series B+ or growth. Sector: [paste]. Initial signal: [paste]. Draft a 600-word diligence framework: the financial diligence (revenue quality, cohort analysis, gross margin trajectory, CAC payback), the market diligence (TAM, competitive position, win rate analysis), the operational diligence (team, infrastructure, governance), the legal diligence (cap table, IP, customer contracts, litigation), the timeline (first call to close: 6-8 weeks typical), the IC checkpoints. Growth-stage diligence that skips the cohort analysis is missing the structural quality signal.
13. Investment Committee memo
Company: [paste]. Stage and check size: [paste]. Conviction: [paste]. Risks: [paste top 3]. Draft an 800-word IC memo: the executive summary (3-5 sentences, the bet and the conviction), the company description (what they do, who they sell to, why it works), the team analysis (founder credibility, key gaps), the market analysis (size, timing, competition), the financial analysis (current state, projections, deal terms), the risk analysis (top 3 with mitigations), the recommendation with named alternatives. IC memos that show only the upside are pitches; this version names the risks.
14. Reference call prep and template
Subject: founder name and role. Reference: name, role, relationship to subject. Goal: [paste, e.g. validate operating ability, validate hiring judgment, validate ethics under pressure]. Draft a 300-word reference call prep: the opening that frames the call honestly (not 'we're considering an investment'), the 5 specific questions (each with a clear signal we are testing), the listen-for items (hesitations, qualifications, off-record asides), the closing that earns a follow-up. Reference calls that ask 'so what are they like' produce no signal; this version asks for specific examples.
15. Customer reference deep-dive
Company: [paste]. Customer reference: [paste with role, company size, contract value, tenure]. Deal stakes: [paste]. Draft a 400-word customer reference call prep: the relationship questions (how did they buy, who else evaluated, what almost stopped them), the value questions (specific dollar or time outcomes, specific metric improvements), the satisfaction questions (renewal probability, expansion willingness, NPS-like signal), the negative questions (what would make them leave, what's missing). Customer references that produce only positive signal are reference theater.
16. Competitive landscape diligence
Company: [paste]. Competitors named by founder: [paste]. Adjacent solutions: [paste]. Draft a 500-word competitive landscape memo: the actual competition (ranked by overlap and threat), the win-loss data we have, the dimensions of differentiation honestly assessed (defensible, marginal, narrative-only), the 12-month competitive trajectory, the implication for the investment thesis. Competitive landscapes that accept the founder's framing miss the real competition; this version pressure-tests it.
17. Founder background verification
Founder: [paste with claimed background, prior roles, education]. Verifiable claims: [paste]. Unverifiable claims: [paste]. Draft a 300-word background verification memo: the verification approach for each claim (LinkedIn validation, prior employer confirmation, educational records, court records check), the references for each major claim, the concerns flagged for further work, the timeline for completion. Founder background verification skipped at investment is verification done painfully at exit.
18. Cap table deep-dive
Cap table: [paste fully diluted]. Round history: [paste]. Liquidation preferences: [paste]. Draft a 400-word cap table memo: the founder ownership trajectory (current, post-this-round, post-future-rounds modeled), the preference stack and what it implies for exit math, the option pool dynamics, the secondary opportunities for prior investors, the structural concerns (preferences disconnected from valuation, founder dilution risk). Cap tables read superficially produce surprised investors at exit.
19. Term sheet negotiation memo
Company: [paste]. Initial term sheet: [paste]. Counter received: [paste]. Draft a 500-word term sheet negotiation memo: the items where I am willing to give (and the relative cost), the items where I will hold (and why), the items where I will walk (and the alternatives), the partner-level escalation points, the timeline (term sheet signed in: paste days), the relationship calculus (will the negotiation pattern affect partnership). Term sheet negotiations without named walk-away points end at the founder's preferred terms.
20. Term sheet decline memo
Decline reason: [paste]. Founder relationship: [paste, e.g. strong, neutral, no prior]. Re-engagement potential: [paste, e.g. wrong stage now, wrong sector, structural pass]. Draft a 200-word decline note: the decline named directly (not 'pass for now'), the reason honestly stated (one or two specific items, not 'team consensus'), the door left open (or closed) with specific framing, the offer of help (intro to other investors, customer intro). Decline notes that perform empathy without honesty damage the relationship; this version is direct.
Category 03: Portfolio Management and Support
Ten prompts for the portfolio management and founder support work that determines whether portfolio companies receive real help or platform theater. The shape: portfolio reviews that triage attention honestly, board prep that produces decisions, bridge round and down round memos that name the structural questions, crisis response with a real playbook. Reject the 'value-add platform' framing that produces shiny content but not founder leverage.
Pairs with: Operator Pack
21. Quarterly portfolio review
Portfolio companies: [paste with metrics]. Quarter end: [paste]. Draft a 600-word portfolio review: the top 3 performers (named with the metric driving), the bottom 3 (named with the structural concern), the markup or markdown decisions for each, the support priorities for next quarter (founders needing the most), the cross-portfolio synergies. Portfolio reviews without explicit ranking produce neglect of the middle.
22. Portfolio company board prep
Company: [paste]. Board meeting: [paste date]. Recent events: [paste, e.g. miss, hire, win, crisis]. Draft a 500-word board prep: the executive summary the founder should lead with, the financial update (numbers and variance, no narrative), the strategic update (what changed in the bet), the asks of the board (specific decisions, options, recommendation), the risk update. Board meetings without an explicit ask waste board time.
23. Founder support priority memo
Portfolio companies: [paste]. Each founder's current need: [paste, e.g. hiring, customer intro, fundraising prep, crisis]. Time available next quarter: [paste hours]. Draft a 400-word support memo: the 3 founders getting the most time (with the specific work to do), the 5 getting moderate touch, the rest at standard cadence, the systems-level support (introductions handled at firm level), the escalation path. Founder support without explicit triage spreads thin and helps no one.
24. Hire support for portfolio company
Company: [paste]. Role: [paste]. Founder gap: [paste]. Existing pipeline: [paste]. Draft a 400-word hire support memo: the firm network for this role (named candidates), the recruiter recommendations, the comp band guidance, the interview support (which partner can interview), the timeline. Hire support that stops at 'introduce two candidates' leaves the founder alone with the hardest work.
25. Bridge round decision memo
Company: [paste]. Cash position: [paste runway]. Trajectory: [paste]. Bridge needs: [paste size, terms]. Draft a 600-word bridge memo: the cause analysis (was the prior round wrong-sized, was execution slow, was the market shift), the bridge math (does it solve the problem or just delay), the structural changes required (cuts, strategy shift, leadership), the participation decision (lead, participate, sit out, force convert), the signal to the next round. Bridge rounds without structural change are runway extensions that delay the inevitable.
26. Down round response framework
Company: [paste]. Down round terms: [paste]. Existing stake: [paste]. Reserve allocation: [paste available]. Draft a 500-word response memo: the structural read (recoverable miss, market reset, broken business), the participation decision (lead the down round, participate pro-rata, sit out, support but not invest), the message to the founder, the cap table implications for prior investors, the lessons captured for the firm's record. Down rounds handled with discipline are recoverable; down rounds handled poorly damage relationships across the network.
27. Portfolio company crisis response
Crisis: [paste, e.g. key person departure, security incident, customer loss, founder dispute]. Stakes: [paste]. Draft a 600-word crisis response: the first-hour actions (founder call, legal review trigger, comms hold), the stakeholder sequence (employees, customers, board, press, LPs), the support the firm provides (specific named partners, network, expertise), the decision points (intervention level, replacement of leadership, write-down). Crisis response without a playbook fails; this version names the playbook.
28. Cross-portfolio synergy memo
Portfolio overview: [paste with company, sector, customer base]. Draft a 400-word synergy memo: the customer-supplier matches (where one portfolio company could buy from another), the talent mobility opportunities (where transitions make sense), the introduction graph (which founders should know each other), the firm-level events that surface these (annual offsite, monthly dinners). Cross-portfolio synergy that depends on chance encounters wastes the structural advantage.
29. Follow-on investment memo
Company: [paste]. Existing stake: [paste]. New round: [paste size and terms]. Reserves: [paste]. Draft a 500-word follow-on memo: the trajectory honestly read (improving, flat, declining since last round), the conviction update (higher, same, lower), the pro-rata or super-pro-rata decision rationale, the alternatives (smaller check, secondary at this round, sit out), the implication for fund construction. Follow-ons that default to pro-rata produce signal loss; this prompt forces the conviction question.
30. Board observer note
Company: [paste]. Board meeting: [paste date]. Status: observer (no vote). Draft a 200-word observer note: the meeting summary in 5 bullets, the partner-relevant items (asks, signal changes, risk updates), the cross-portfolio relevance (anything other companies should know), the next-meeting agenda items I will prepare. Observer notes that read like minutes are filing; this version is partner-relevant signal.
Category 04: Exit Strategy and Returns
Ten prompts for the exit and returns work that determines whether the fund compounds or just deploys. The shape: exit pathway analysis with named buyers, IPO readiness assessed early, secondary opportunities evaluated honestly, post-exit reviews and loss memos that produce learning. Reject the 'we always hold for the long term' framing that produces missed exit windows.
Pairs with: Operator Pack
31. Exit pathway analysis
Company: [paste]. Stage: [paste]. Time horizon to exit: [paste, e.g. 18-36 months]. Draft a 600-word exit pathway memo: the M&A scenarios (named buyers, valuation ranges, strategic rationale), the IPO scenario (revenue threshold, market window, timeline), the secondary scenarios (continuation vehicle, secondary sale to growth fund), the recapitalization scenario, the recommendation with named conditions. Exit pathways without named buyers and revenue thresholds are wishlists.
32. M&A buyer landscape memo
Company: [paste]. Sector: [paste]. Strategic value: [paste]. Draft a 500-word M&A landscape memo: the strategic buyers ranked by likely interest (with the rationale for each), the financial buyers (PE roll-ups, sector funds), the buyer-specific positioning (what each buyer wants, what each will pay), the timing considerations (which buyers are active now), the introduction path. M&A landscapes without buyer-specific positioning produce process pricing rather than strategic pricing.
33. IPO readiness assessment
Company: [paste]. Revenue trajectory: [paste]. Operational state: [paste]. Draft a 600-word IPO readiness memo: the revenue gates (typical thresholds for current market, sector-specific), the operational readiness gaps (financial reporting, governance, legal, audit), the timeline to readiness (typically 18-24 months from start), the cost of readiness (people, systems, advisors), the alternative paths (M&A, secondary, continuation). IPO readiness assessed late produces 18-month delays; this prompt forces the early assessment.
34. Secondary opportunity memo
Company: [paste]. Existing stake: [paste with cost basis]. Secondary opportunity: [paste size and price]. Draft a 400-word secondary memo: the price relative to current valuation, the partial liquidity vs full sale decision, the impact on remaining stake conviction, the LP communication implication, the tax considerations. Secondary opportunities evaluated only on price miss the relationship and signal implications.
35. Exit timing decision memo
Company: [paste]. Current valuation: [paste]. Exit window scenarios: [paste, e.g. now at X, 12 months at Y, 24 months at Z]. Draft a 500-word timing memo: the value trajectory honestly modeled, the market window risks (valuation contraction, IPO window closing), the company-specific risks (key person, customer concentration), the cash needs that affect timing, the recommendation with named conditions. Exit timing decided on optimism produces missed windows.
36. Return waterfall analysis
Investment: [paste cost basis]. Exit price: [paste with structure]. Liquidation preferences: [paste]. Draft a 400-word waterfall memo: the gross return calculation step by step, the preference stack flow, the carry calculation honestly, the fund-level impact, the LP-level impact, the precedent for similar exits. Return waterfalls calculated quickly produce surprised partners; this version forces the step-by-step.
37. DPI maximization memo
Fund: [paste]. Current DPI: [paste]. TVPI: [paste]. Portfolio status: [paste]. Draft a 500-word DPI memo: the realized vs unrealized split honestly assessed, the secondary opportunities to convert TVPI to DPI, the portfolio companies near exit (and the timeline pressure), the LP communication around DPI patience, the trade-offs (premature exits vs holding for higher returns). DPI as a metric without secondary strategy is just a number to be patient about.
38. Portfolio markup methodology
Companies to mark: [paste with last round and current trajectory]. Quarter end: [paste]. Draft a 400-word markup memo: the conservative mark vs aggressive mark trade-off, the comparable transactions used, the company-specific adjustments (trajectory better or worse since round), the LP audit implications, the consistency check across the portfolio. Portfolio markups that consistently come in higher than realized exits damage LP trust; this version applies discipline.
39. Deal review post-exit
Company: [paste]. Exit details: [paste]. Initial investment: [paste with thesis]. Draft a 600-word post-exit review: the original thesis honestly compared to what happened, the things the diligence got right, the things the diligence missed, the value-add that mattered (and what was theater), the lessons for next sourcing in the sector. Post-exit reviews that celebrate without learning produce the same patterns of mistake.
40. Loss memo (write-off rationale)
Company: [paste]. Initial investment: [paste]. Status: [paste, e.g. shutdown, structured wind-down, write-down to zero]. Draft a 600-word loss memo: the timeline of decline, the original investment thesis honestly compared, the points where intervention was possible (and why it did not happen), the structural lessons for the firm, the LP communication. Loss memos that blame execution miss the structural lessons; this version names them.
Category 05: LP Communications and Fund Strategy
Ten prompts for the LP communications and fund strategy work that determines whether the next fund raises or grinds. The shape: quarterly LP letters that name the down rounds, difficult LP updates handled directly, Fund II thesis memos calibrated against Fund I lessons, pacing and reserves discipline. Reject the 'long-term-oriented LP communication' framing that buries hard news in narrative.
Pairs with: Operator Pack
41. Quarterly LP letter
Quarter: [paste]. Fund vintage: [paste]. Major events: [paste, e.g. exits, new investments, markups, write-downs]. Draft an 800-word LP letter: the executive summary (the quarter in 5 bullets), the portfolio update (top movers in both directions), the new investments (named with thesis), the realizations (named with returns), the market commentary (one section, sector-specific not macro-puff), the team update (hires, departures), the next-quarter focus. LP letters that perform optimism without named risks lose LP trust over multiple quarters.
42. Annual LP meeting prep
Annual meeting: [paste date]. LPs attending: [paste counts and key attendees]. Major narratives: [paste]. Draft a 700-word prep memo: the headline story for the year (the thesis update), the portfolio deep-dives (top 3 to feature with founder presentations), the difficult conversations to handle proactively (markdowns, underperforming vintages), the firm update (strategy refresh, team, fund pacing), the Q&A preparation. Annual LP meetings handled as performances produce LP relationship erosion; this version handles them as substance.
43. Difficult LP update
Topic: [paste, e.g. major write-down, key person departure, fund pacing miss]. Severity: [paste]. Draft a 500-word LP update: the news named directly in the first paragraph (no preamble), the cause (factual, not narrative), the response (specific actions taken), the implication for the fund (revised projections), the partner-level call schedule (top 5 LPs called personally). Difficult LP updates that bury the news produce LPs hearing it from secondhand sources, which is worse.
44. Fund II thesis memo
Fund I performance: [paste DPI, TVPI]. Market shift since Fund I: [paste]. Team capacity: [paste]. Draft a 700-word Fund II thesis memo: the validated lessons from Fund I (what worked, what did not), the thesis evolution (where the strategy changes), the fund size logic (deploy capacity vs market opportunity), the LP positioning (story for first-time LPs, story for re-ups), the differentiation honestly stated. Fund II memos that narrate Fund I as universally successful produce LP skepticism.
45. New fund LP fundraising deck outline
Fund: [paste]. Target size: [paste]. Differentiation: [paste]. Draft a 600-word deck outline: the cover and tagline, the team slide (with concrete experience not generic credentials), the strategy slide (the actual bet, not 'invest in great founders'), the fund I track record (honestly with returns and named investments), the market opportunity, the value-add slide (specific examples, not 'platform'), the terms slide (fees, carry, hurdle), the timeline. Fundraising decks without specific named examples are template decks; this version is substance-driven.
46. LPAC consultation memo
Issue requiring LPAC consultation: [paste, e.g. conflict, key person event, strategy change]. LPAC composition: [paste]. Draft a 500-word LPAC memo: the issue described factually, the LPA implications, the alternatives considered, the recommended path with rationale, the LP-level impact analysis, the timeline for decision. LPAC memos that present a single option and ask for approval produce real or imagined consent issues; this version names alternatives.
47. Fund strategy refresh memo
Current strategy: [paste]. Market shift: [paste]. Performance signals: [paste]. Draft a 600-word strategy refresh memo: the strategic question (where the fund's edge is shifting), the proposed evolution (what changes, what stays), the resource implication (people, capital, geography), the LP-communication strategy for the change, the timeline. Fund strategy refreshes done in response to performance pressure rather than market signal produce LP nervousness; this version separates the two.
48. Pacing model memo
Fund: [paste]. Deployed: [paste]. Remaining: [paste]. Reserves: [paste]. Draft a 400-word pacing memo: the deployment trajectory vs target, the reserve allocation against follow-on demand, the new investment pace required to fully deploy, the over-deployment risk if pace is held, the LP communication implication of pacing changes. Pacing models that drift without LP communication produce surprises in fund cycle 2.
49. Reserves allocation memo
Portfolio: [paste]. Reserves available: [paste]. Follow-on demand expected: [paste with companies and rounds]. Draft a 500-word reserves memo: the priority ranking (which companies get follow-on first, with conviction calibration), the holdback for unknown follow-ons, the reserves vs new investment trade-off, the LP communication around reserves discipline. Reserves allocated democratically produce signal loss; reserves allocated to highest conviction produce concentrated returns.
50. GP commit decision memo
Fund size: [paste]. GP commit target: [paste percent]. Personal capacity: [paste]. Draft a 400-word GP commit memo: the math honestly (what GP commit means at this fund size), the LP signal implication (low GP commit produces LP skepticism), the personal trade-offs (liquidity, concentration), the structure options (cash, deferred fees, partner contributions), the recommendation. GP commits set without explicit LP signal calibration produce LP raise difficulty.
How the prompts fit a real investor week and year
Daily: inbound triage, cold outreach, founder calls. The deal flow rhythm.
Weekly: Monday partnership meeting prep with deal flow analytics, network mapping outreach, founder support call queue. The week needs structure or it becomes meeting-driven.
Monthly: portfolio company board prep, founder support priority memo, cross-portfolio synergy review. The monthly cadence catches the medium-frequency portfolio work.
Quarterly: portfolio review, deal flow analytics, rejected deal log analysis, quarterly LP letter, markup methodology, pacing review. The quarterly cadence is where fund discipline shows.
Annually: annual LP meeting prep, fund strategy refresh, sector landscape briefs, post-exit reviews. The annual cadence is where strategic drift gets corrected.
Cycle (every 3-5 years): Fund II thesis memo, fundraising deck, GP commit decisions, full strategy refresh. The cycle cadence is where fund evolution happens.
Five mistakes that wreck investor prompts
1. Filling in prompts with founder narrative instead of numbers. The prompts ask for specific revenue, ARR, growth rates, conviction levels. Filling with 'strong', 'high-conviction', 'fast-growing' produces output of the same low calibration. The discipline is putting the actual numbers into the inputs.
2. Skipping the loss memo and post-exit review prompts. The discipline of writing what went wrong is the discipline that prevents the next mistake. Funds that only celebrate winners produce more losses than funds that learn from losses.
3. Treating the IC memo recommendation as the answer. The prompt produces a recommendation with named alternatives. The point is the structured comparison, not the recommendation. The IC memo is the start of the partner discussion, not the end.
4. Running the influencer-genre prompts instead of these. Prompts that produce 'thesis-driven sourcing' or 'how I built conviction' content reinforce the genre this pack rejects. Calibration to VC twitter produces threads, not memos.
5. Sharing the IC memo or LP letter externally without redaction. The prompts are calibrated for internal use. The outputs name founders, deals, and decisions that should not leak. The prompts assume the discipline of internal-only.
Questions people ask
Who is this pack for? Venture capitalists at all stages (seed through growth), private equity associates and partners, family office investment teams, fund-of-funds managers, and corporate development teams running M&A diligence. Most useful for funds with structured IC processes, partnerships of 3+, and active LP relationships. The prompts assume basic investment literacy: cap table reading, term sheet vocabulary, fund math.
Does it work for solo GPs and emerging managers? Yes for most categories. Solo GPs may skip the LPAC and Fund II prompts initially. The Deal Sourcing, Diligence, and Portfolio categories work from day one. Pair with the Founder Pack for the founder-side perspective on the same conversations.
Does it work for non-tech investing? Yes. The pack is calibrated for the investor role independent of asset class. Most prompts work for PE, growth equity, sector-specific funds, family offices, and strategic corporate investors. The Diligence framework prompts may need adaptation for asset-heavy or regulated sectors; the LP comms and exit strategy prompts work universally.
What output format does it produce? IC memo register: flat, factual, named risks, specific recommendations with alternatives. The opposite of LinkedIn-thread register. The prompts explicitly ban the VC-influencer phrases listed at the top.
Can I use these for cold outbound to founders or investors? The cold outreach prompt is built for that. The other prompts are for internal use; their outputs name deals and conviction levels that should not leak.
The other free packs in the franchise
Same calibration discipline, different audiences. The thesis behind all of them: The Anti-Prompt-Engineering Manifesto. The framework: The 8-Component Skeleton. Daily B2B work: 100 B2B Mega Pack. Founder GTM: 50 Founder GTM Pack. Operator layer: 50 CFO COO Operator Pack. Crisis moments: 100 Issues and Escalations Pack. Personal life: 100 Personal Productivity and Life Pack. Sports betting and markets: 50 Sports Betting Pack. All free.
Get the Vault — $99.99 for 50 specialist B2B sales prompts. All Access $99.99.
Deixe um comentário: