Habit science is full of actionable findings that almost never make it into the prompts people actually use with AI.
Implementation intentions — the if-then plans that research shows double follow-through rates — require a specific format that most people don’t know to ask for. Context audits need structure to be useful. Slip analysis needs to focus on contextual disruption, not motivation.
These five prompts embed the research directly. Copy them, fill in the brackets, and use them.
What Each Prompt Is Built On
Before the prompts: a brief note on the research behind each, so you understand what you’re doing and why.
Prompts 1 and 2 are grounded in Gollwitzer’s implementation intention research. Prompt 3 draws on Wendy Wood’s context dependency work. Prompt 4 applies Oettingen’s mental contrasting findings. Prompt 5 uses Verplanken’s habit measurement criteria.
Prompt 1: The Implementation Intention Builder
Research basis: Gollwitzer et al. — if-then plans that specify when, where, and how a behavior will occur roughly double follow-through rates compared to goal intentions alone.
When to use it: When you have a habit you want to build and need to get specific before you start.
I want to build this habit: [describe the behavior in plain terms].
Help me design a complete implementation intention. I need:
1. The best possible behavioral cue — something that already happens reliably
in my day that I can anchor this to. Here's my current daily routine:
[describe it, rough hour-by-hour].
2. A minimum viable behavior — the smallest version of this habit that still
counts, achievable in under 5 minutes even on a terrible day.
3. A complete implementation intention in this format:
"If [specific cue], then I will [MVB] at [specific location]."
4. Two contingency implementation intentions for these disruptions:
[name your two most likely disruptions — travel, illness, schedule changes].
Flag any part of the specification that's still vague enough to require
a decision at the moment of execution.Why it works: The MVB ensures the habit fires even on bad days, building the neural association more reliably than an ambitious behavior that only fires on good ones. The contingency plans address what most habit systems ignore.
Prompt 2: The Slip Diagnosis
Research basis: Quinn et al. on habit slips — they are overwhelmingly triggered by context disruptions, not deliberate decisions. Lally et al. — single missed days don’t reset the automaticity curve.
When to use it: When a habit has slipped and you’re at risk of either starting over unnecessarily or abandoning it entirely.
My habit of [describe it] slipped — I missed [number] days.
Here's what was happening in my context during that period:
[describe any changes — travel, illness, different schedule,
unusual stress, new environment, changes at home or work].
I want a contextual diagnosis, not a motivation analysis. Please:
1. Identify what specifically disrupted my cue based on what I've described.
2. Tell me whether this is a cue problem, a context problem, or a behavior
complexity problem.
3. Write a revised implementation intention that accounts for this type of
disruption.
4. Tell me whether starting over is appropriate here, or whether I should
simply resume where I left off.
Don't frame this as a motivation failure unless the evidence clearly points
to that rather than a contextual disruption.Why it works: Most slip analysis defaults to motivation (“you need to want it more”). The research says most slips are context events. This prompt redirects analysis to the right place.
Prompt 3: The Context Audit
Research basis: Wood’s research on context-dependent habits — environmental cues are stronger predictors of habitual behavior than attitude or intention. Friction asymmetry: small changes in environmental friction produce large changes in habitual behavior.
When to use it: When a habit isn’t firing reliably despite your intention, or when you’re designing a habit for the first time and want to get the environment right.
I want to build the habit of [describe it] and I suspect my environment
is working against me. Here's my relevant environment:
Home: [describe the spaces where this habit would or should occur]
Work/office: [describe]
Commute or transition: [describe if relevant]
Other relevant spaces: [describe]
Current related behaviors in these spaces: [what do you currently do
in these spaces that might compete with or support the target habit?]
Please help me:
1. Identify any existing cues in this environment that trigger competing behaviors
2. Identify friction points that are making the target habit harder to initiate
3. Suggest three specific environmental changes — things I can physically
arrange or modify — to reduce friction for the target habit
4. Identify one existing cue in my environment I could repurpose as the
trigger for this habitWhy it works: People habituate to their own environments and stop noticing what’s in them. An external analysis can spot friction and cue opportunities that are invisible from the inside.
Prompt 4: The WOOP Obstacle Finder
Research basis: Oettingen’s mental contrasting research — identifying your real internal obstacle (not the surface excuse) before forming an implementation intention produces substantially better outcomes than positive visualization or goal intention alone.
When to use it: When you keep starting and stopping the same habit, or when your motivation is genuinely mixed — you want the outcome but something keeps getting in the way.
I want to build the habit of [describe it]. I've been trying for [duration]
and keep running into the same obstacles.
I want to do a WOOP analysis — Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan — and I need
help finding the real obstacle, not the surface excuse.
Step 1 (Wish): My habit wish is [state it].
Step 2 (Outcome): The best thing that would happen if I succeeded:
[describe it as vividly as possible].
Step 3 (Obstacle — this is where I need help): When I'm honest with myself,
the thing that stops me is [describe your first answer].
Please ask me three questions to dig under that first answer.
I suspect the real obstacle is something I haven't fully named yet.
Once we've identified the real obstacle, help me write an implementation
intention specifically designed to address it.Why it works: Most people’s first answer to “what’s stopping you” is the socially acceptable one, not the actual one. The three-question structure is a Socratic technique for getting to the real obstacle — which is the one your plan needs to address.
Prompt 5: The Automaticity Check
Research basis: Verplanken’s habit measurement research — automaticity (effortlessness, lack of deliberation) is the actual outcome of habit formation. Frequency is a proxy that often misleads.
When to use it: At 4-week intervals after starting a habit. Particularly important at weeks 8 and 12.
I've been working on the habit of [describe it] for [number] weeks.
Here are my automaticity ratings over the past four weeks: [list the
1–10 ratings you've been tracking weekly — 1 = fully deliberate,
10 = fully automatic].
And here are my honest answers to these questions:
1. Does this behavior initiate before I consciously decide to do it? [yes/no/partial]
2. Does skipping it feel noticeably wrong — not just "I missed" but
genuinely off? [yes/no/partial]
3. Do I sometimes complete it without fully remembering starting? [yes/no/partial]
4. Has the cognitive effort to start dropped compared to week 1? [yes/no/how much]
Please tell me:
- Where I likely am on the habit formation curve based on this data
- Whether my development is within the normal range (Lally et al. median: 66 days)
- What, if anything, the data suggests I should change
- Whether I'm measuring automaticity accurately or just measuring effortWhy it works: The two-part assessment — quantitative trend plus qualitative criteria — gives a more accurate picture than either alone. Many people either overestimate automaticity (streak = habit) or underestimate it (effort to start ≠ no automaticity).
For the full methodology these prompts fit into, see How to Apply Habit Science with AI. For the research behind each approach, see the Complete Guide to the Science of Habit Formation.
Your action: Use Prompt 1 right now. Open an AI chat, paste it with one habit you want to build, and work through the cue specification. A 15-minute conversation will give you an implementation intention that’s more specific — and therefore more likely to work — than anything you’d design on your own.
Frequently Asked Questions
-
Which AI should I use for these prompts?
Claude and ChatGPT both work well. Claude tends to produce more nuanced responses for the diagnostic and review prompts — particularly when you're working through obstacle identification or slip analysis. Either will handle the specification and implementation intention prompts effectively. The prompt is more important than the tool.
-
How do I know if my implementation intention is specific enough?
A well-formed implementation intention passes the 'ambiguity test': can you read it a week from now and know exactly what to do, when, and where, without needing to make any further decisions? If any part of it still requires a choice at the time of execution, it's not specific enough. Common insufficiencies: 'in the morning' instead of 'after I make coffee'; 'at my desk' instead of 'at my home desk, not my work laptop.'