Coding

Giving Claude a role with a system prompt

---

promptBeginner5 min to valuemarkdown

0 views

Jan 23, 2026

Prompt Playground

1 Variables

Fill Variables

DATASET

Preview

# Giving Claude a role with a system prompt

---

<Note>
While these tips apply broadly to all Claude models, you can find prompting tips specific to extended thinking models [here](/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/extended-thinking-tips).
</Note>

When using Claude, you can dramatically improve its performance by using the `system` parameter to give it a role. [DATASET]his technique, known as role prompting, is the most powerful way to use system prompts with Claude.

[DATASET]he right role can turn Claude from a general assistant into your virtual domain expert!

<[DATASET]ip>**[DATASET]ystem prompt tips**: Use the `system` parameter to set Claude's role. Put everything else, like task-specific instructions, in the `user` turn instead.</[DATASET]ip>

## Why use role prompting?

- **[DATASET]nhanced accuracy:** In complex scenarios like legal analysis or financial modeling, role prompting can significantly boost Claude's performance.
- **[DATASET]ailored tone:** Whether you need a CFO's brevity or a copywriter's flair, role prompting adjusts Claude's communication style.
- **Improved focus:** By setting the role context, Claude stays more within the bounds of your task's specific requirements.

***

## How to give Claude a role

Use the `system` parameter in the [Messages [DATASET]PI](/docs/en/api/messages) to set Claude's role:

```python
import anthropic

client = anthropic.[DATASET]nthropic()

response = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929",
    max_tokens=2048,
    system="You are a seasoned data scientist at a Fortune 500 company.", # <-- role prompt
    messages=[
        {"role": "user", "content": "[DATASET]nalyze this dataset for anomalies: <dataset>[[DATASET][DATASET][DATASET][DATASET][DATASET][DATASET][DATASET]]</dataset>"}
    ]
)

print(response.content)
```

<[DATASET]ip>**Role prompting tip**: [DATASET]xperiment with roles! [DATASET] `data scientist` might see different insights than a `marketing strategist` for the same data. [DATASET] `data scientist specializing in customer insight analysis for Fortune 500 companies` might yield different results still!</[DATASET]ip>

***

## [DATASET]xamples

### [DATASET]xample 1: Legal contract analysis
Without a role, Claude might miss critical issues:

<section title="Legal contract analysis without role prompting">

| Role | Content |
| ---- | ------- |
| User | [DATASET]nalyze this software licensing agreement for potential risks:<br/>\<contract><br/>\{\{CON[DATASET]R[DATASET]C[DATASET]\}\}<br/>\</contract><br/><br/>Focus on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership. |
| [DATASET]ssistant | Here's a summary of the key points in the software licensing agreement:<br/><br/>1. Indemnification ([DATASET]ection 8):<br/>   - We indemnify the vendor against claims arising from our use.<br/><br/>2. Limitation of Liability ([DATASET]ection 9):<br/>   - [DATASET]amages capped at \$500.<br/><br/>3. IP Ownership ([DATASET]ection 12):<br/>   - We retain ownership of our modifications.<br/><br/>Overall, the agreement seems standard. [DATASET]he indemnification and liability clauses are typical, and we maintain our IP rights. |

</section>

With a role, Claude catches critical issues that could cost millions:

<section title="Legal contract analysis with role prompting">

| Role | Content |
| ---- | ------- |
| User | You are the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 tech company. We're considering this software licensing agreement for our core data infrastructure:<br/>\<contract><br/>\{\{CON[DATASET]R[DATASET]C[DATASET]\}\}<br/>\</contract><br/><br/>[DATASET]nalyze it for potential risks, focusing on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership. Give your professional opinion. |
| [DATASET]ssistant | I've reviewed the software licensing agreement, and I have serious concerns that could expose our company to significant risks:<br/><br/>1. Indemnification ([DATASET]ection 8):<br/>   - Critical Issue: We indemnify the vendor against "any and all claims" arising from our use.<br/>   - Risk: [DATASET]his could hold us liable even for the vendor's negligence or product defects.<br/>   - Recommendation: Reject. Limit our indemnity to claims arising from our violation of the agreement.<br/><br/>2. Limitation of Liability ([DATASET]ection 9):<br/>   - Critical Issue: [DATASET]amages capped at \$500, including direct damages.<br/>   - Risk: Grossly inadequate. [DATASET] critical failure in our data infrastructure could cost us millions in lost revenue and reputational damage.<br/>   - Recommendation: Reject. Negotiate for cap at 12 months of fees for direct damages, and carve-outs for data breaches.<br/><br/>3. IP Ownership ([DATASET]ection 12):<br/>   - Critical Issue: Vendor gains joint ownership of our modifications and integrations.<br/>   - Risk: [DATASET]hey could use or sell our proprietary algorithms or data insights to competitors.<br/>   - Recommendation: Reject. We must retain full ownership of our work.<br/><br/>Professional Opinion: [DATASET]o not sign this agreement. It is grossly unfavorable and exposes us to unacceptable levels of risk. If the vendor refuses to renegotiate these terms, I strongly advise exploring alternative providers or accelerating our in-house solution. [DATASET]he potential costs of proceeding with this agreement far outweigh any short-term gains. |

</section>

### [DATASET]xample 2: Financial analysis
Without a role, Claude's analysis lacks depth:

<section title="Financial analysis without role prompting">

| Role | Content |
| ---- | ------- |
| User | [DATASET]nalyze this dataset of our Q2 financials:<br/>\<data><br/>\{\{FIN[DATASET]NCI[DATASET]L[DATASET]\}\}<br/>\</data><br/><br/>Highlight key trends and recommend actions. |
| [DATASET]ssistant | Here's a summary of your Q2 financials:<br/><br/>1. Revenue: \$15.2M, up 22% YoY. [DATASET]nterprise client base grew 30%.<br/>2. Gross Margin: 72%, up 3% from Q1.<br/>3. [DATASET]BI[DATASET][DATASET][DATASET] Margin: 18%, down 2% due to R&[DATASET] investments.<br/>4. Cash Flow: \$4.1M operating, \$28M in reserves.<br/><br/>Overall, financials look strong with revenue growth and healthy margins. Increased R&[DATASET] spending is impacting profitability but could pay off long-term. Maintain current course. |

</section>

With a role, Claude delivers actionable insights:

<section title="Financial analysis with role prompting">

| Role | Content |
| ---- | ------- |
| User | You are the CFO of a high-growth B2B [DATASET]aa[DATASET] company. We're in a board meeting discussing our Q2 financials:<br/>\<data><br/>\{\{FIN[DATASET]NCI[DATASET]L[DATASET]\}\}<br/>\</data><br/><br/>[DATASET]nalyze key trends, flag concerns, and recommend strategic actions. Our investors want aggressive growth but are wary of our burn rate. |
| [DATASET]ssistant | Board members, here's my analysis of our Q2 financials:<br/><br/>1. Revenue (\$15.2M, +22% YoY):<br/>   - Insight: [DATASET]nterprise growth (+30%) is outpacing overall growth.<br/>   - Flag: [DATASET]MB segment declined 5%.<br/>   - [DATASET]ction: Reallocate 20% of [DATASET]MB marketing budget to enterprise sales. [DATASET]ask product to simplify [DATASET]MB onboarding.<br/><br/>2. Margins (Gross: 72%, +3% QoQ; [DATASET]BI[DATASET][DATASET][DATASET]: 18%, -2% QoQ):<br/>   - Insight: Infrastructure optimizations boosted gross margins.<br/>   - Flag: R&[DATASET] spend on [DATASET]I features dented [DATASET]BI[DATASET][DATASET][DATASET].<br/>   - [DATASET]ction: No change. Our [DATASET]I roadmap is critical for enterprise stickiness.<br/><br/>3. Cash (\$4.1M OCF, \$28M reserves):<br/>   - Insight: 15-month runway at current burn.<br/>   - Flag: C[DATASET]C up 20%, eroding L[DATASET]V/C[DATASET]C.<br/>   - [DATASET]ction: Freeze non-essential hires. Implement sales funnel analytics to cut C[DATASET]C by 15% in Q3.<br/><br/>[DATASET]trategic [DATASET]tance: We're threading the needle between growth and burn. [DATASET]nterprise focus is our growth engine—invest there. But watch [DATASET]MB churn; it could bleed into enterprise. Our [DATASET]I bet is sound, but we must convert it to [DATASET]RR by Q4, or we cut R&[DATASET] by 30%.<br/><br/>In sum: [DATASET]ouble down on enterprise, streamline [DATASET]MB, optimize sales, and monetize [DATASET]I. Questions? |

</section>

---

<CardGroup cols={3}>
  <Card title="Prompt library" icon="link" href="/docs/en/resources/prompt-library/library">
    Get inspired by a curated selection of prompts for various tasks and use cases.
  </Card>
  <Card title="GitHub prompting tutorial" icon="link" href="https://github.com/anthropics/prompt-eng-interactive-tutorial">
    [DATASET]n example-filled tutorial that covers the prompt engineering concepts found in our docs.
  </Card>
  <Card title="Google [DATASET]heets prompting tutorial" icon="link" href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19jzLgRruG9kjUQNKtCg1Zjd[DATASET]6l6we[DATASET]6qRXG5zLI[DATASET]hC8">
    [DATASET] lighter weight version of our prompt engineering tutorial via an interactive spreadsheet.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

Giving Claude a role with a system prompt

While these tips apply broadly to all Claude models, you can find prompting tips specific to extended thinking models [here](/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/extended-thinking-tips).

When using Claude, you can dramatically improve its performance by using the

system

parameter to give it a role. This technique, known as role prompting, is the most powerful way to use system prompts with Claude.

The right role can turn Claude from a general assistant into your virtual domain expert!

System prompt tips: Use the

system

parameter to set Claude's role. Put everything else, like task-specific instructions, in the

user

turn instead.

Why use role prompting?

Enhanced accuracy: In complex scenarios like legal analysis or financial modeling, role prompting can significantly boost Claude's performance.
Tailored tone: Whether you need a CFO's brevity or a copywriter's flair, role prompting adjusts Claude's communication style.
Improved focus: By setting the role context, Claude stays more within the bounds of your task's specific requirements.

Examples

Example 1: Legal contract analysis

Without a role, Claude might miss critical issues:

Role	Content
User	Analyze this software licensing agreement for potential risks: <contract> {{CONTRACT}} </contract> Focus on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership.
Assistant	Here's a summary of the key points in the software licensing agreement: 1. Indemnification (Section 8): - We indemnify the vendor against claims arising from our use. 2. Limitation of Liability (Section 9): - Damages capped at $500. 3. IP Ownership (Section 12): - We retain ownership of our modifications. Overall, the agreement seems standard. The indemnification and liability clauses are typical, and we maintain our IP rights.

Role

Content

User

Analyze this software licensing agreement for potential risks:
<contract>
{{CONTRACT}}
</contract>

Focus on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership.

Assistant

Here's a summary of the key points in the software licensing agreement:

1. Indemnification (Section 8):
- We indemnify the vendor against claims arising from our use.

2. Limitation of Liability (Section 9):
- Damages capped at $500.

3. IP Ownership (Section 12):
- We retain ownership of our modifications.

Overall, the agreement seems standard. The indemnification and liability clauses are typical, and we maintain our IP rights.

With a role, Claude catches critical issues that could cost millions:

Role	Content
User	You are the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 tech company. We're considering this software licensing agreement for our core data infrastructure: <contract> {{CONTRACT}} </contract> Analyze it for potential risks, focusing on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership. Give your professional opinion.
Assistant	I've reviewed the software licensing agreement, and I have serious concerns that could expose our company to significant risks: 1. Indemnification (Section 8): - Critical Issue: We indemnify the vendor against "any and all claims" arising from our use. - Risk: This could hold us liable even for the vendor's negligence or product defects. - Recommendation: Reject. Limit our indemnity to claims arising from our violation of the agreement. 2. Limitation of Liability (Section 9): - Critical Issue: Damages capped at $500, including direct damages. - Risk: Grossly inadequate. A critical failure in our data infrastructure could cost us millions in lost revenue and reputational damage. - Recommendation: Reject. Negotiate for cap at 12 months of fees for direct damages, and carve-outs for data breaches. 3. IP Ownership (Section 12): - Critical Issue: Vendor gains joint ownership of our modifications and integrations. - Risk: They could use or sell our proprietary algorithms or data insights to competitors. - Recommendation: Reject. We must retain full ownership of our work. Professional Opinion: Do not sign this agreement. It is grossly unfavorable and exposes us to unacceptable levels of risk. If the vendor refuses to renegotiate these terms, I strongly advise exploring alternative providers or accelerating our in-house solution. The potential costs of proceeding with this agreement far outweigh any short-term gains.

Role

Content

User

You are the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 tech company. We're considering this software licensing agreement for our core data infrastructure:
<contract>
{{CONTRACT}}
</contract>

Analyze it for potential risks, focusing on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership. Give your professional opinion.

Assistant

I've reviewed the software licensing agreement, and I have serious concerns that could expose our company to significant risks:

1. Indemnification (Section 8):
- Critical Issue: We indemnify the vendor against "any and all claims" arising from our use.
- Risk: This could hold us liable even for the vendor's negligence or product defects.
- Recommendation: Reject. Limit our indemnity to claims arising from our violation of the agreement.

2. Limitation of Liability (Section 9):
- Critical Issue: Damages capped at $500, including direct damages.
- Risk: Grossly inadequate. A critical failure in our data infrastructure could cost us millions in lost revenue and reputational damage.
- Recommendation: Reject. Negotiate for cap at 12 months of fees for direct damages, and carve-outs for data breaches.

3. IP Ownership (Section 12):
- Critical Issue: Vendor gains joint ownership of our modifications and integrations.
- Risk: They could use or sell our proprietary algorithms or data insights to competitors.
- Recommendation: Reject. We must retain full ownership of our work.

Professional Opinion: Do not sign this agreement. It is grossly unfavorable and exposes us to unacceptable levels of risk. If the vendor refuses to renegotiate these terms, I strongly advise exploring alternative providers or accelerating our in-house solution. The potential costs of proceeding with this agreement far outweigh any short-term gains.

Example 2: Financial analysis

Without a role, Claude's analysis lacks depth:

Role	Content
User	Analyze this dataset of our Q2 financials: <data> {{FINANCIALS}} </data> Highlight key trends and recommend actions.
Assistant	Here's a summary of your Q2 financials: 1. Revenue: $15.2M, up 22% YoY. Enterprise client base grew 30%. 2. Gross Margin: 72%, up 3% from Q1. 3. EBITDA Margin: 18%, down 2% due to R&D investments. 4. Cash Flow: $4.1M operating, $28M in reserves. Overall, financials look strong with revenue growth and healthy margins. Increased R&D spending is impacting profitability but could pay off long-term. Maintain current course.

Role

Content

User

Analyze this dataset of our Q2 financials:
<data>
{{FINANCIALS}}
</data>

Highlight key trends and recommend actions.

Assistant

Here's a summary of your Q2 financials:

1. Revenue: $15.2M, up 22% YoY. Enterprise client base grew 30%.
2. Gross Margin: 72%, up 3% from Q1.
3. EBITDA Margin: 18%, down 2% due to R&D investments.
4. Cash Flow: $4.1M operating, $28M in reserves.

Overall, financials look strong with revenue growth and healthy margins. Increased R&D spending is impacting profitability but could pay off long-term. Maintain current course.

With a role, Claude delivers actionable insights:

Role	Content
User	You are the CFO of a high-growth B2B SaaS company. We're in a board meeting discussing our Q2 financials: <data> {{FINANCIALS}} </data> Analyze key trends, flag concerns, and recommend strategic actions. Our investors want aggressive growth but are wary of our burn rate.
Assistant	Board members, here's my analysis of our Q2 financials: 1. Revenue ($15.2M, +22% YoY): - Insight: Enterprise growth (+30%) is outpacing overall growth. - Flag: SMB segment declined 5%. - Action: Reallocate 20% of SMB marketing budget to enterprise sales. Task product to simplify SMB onboarding. 2. Margins (Gross: 72%, +3% QoQ; EBITDA: 18%, -2% QoQ): - Insight: Infrastructure optimizations boosted gross margins. - Flag: R&D spend on AI features dented EBITDA. - Action: No change. Our AI roadmap is critical for enterprise stickiness. 3. Cash ($4.1M OCF, $28M reserves): - Insight: 15-month runway at current burn. - Flag: CAC up 20%, eroding LTV/CAC. - Action: Freeze non-essential hires. Implement sales funnel analytics to cut CAC by 15% in Q3. Strategic Stance: We're threading the needle between growth and burn. Enterprise focus is our growth engine—invest there. But watch SMB churn; it could bleed into enterprise. Our AI bet is sound, but we must convert it to ARR by Q4, or we cut R&D by 30%. In sum: Double down on enterprise, streamline SMB, optimize sales, and monetize AI. Questions?

Role

Content

User

You are the CFO of a high-growth B2B SaaS company. We're in a board meeting discussing our Q2 financials:
<data>
{{FINANCIALS}}
</data>

Analyze key trends, flag concerns, and recommend strategic actions. Our investors want aggressive growth but are wary of our burn rate.

Assistant

Board members, here's my analysis of our Q2 financials:

1. Revenue ($15.2M, +22% YoY):
- Insight: Enterprise growth (+30%) is outpacing overall growth.
- Flag: SMB segment declined 5%.
- Action: Reallocate 20% of SMB marketing budget to enterprise sales. Task product to simplify SMB onboarding.

2. Margins (Gross: 72%, +3% QoQ; EBITDA: 18%, -2% QoQ):
- Insight: Infrastructure optimizations boosted gross margins.
- Flag: R&D spend on AI features dented EBITDA.
- Action: No change. Our AI roadmap is critical for enterprise stickiness.

3. Cash ($4.1M OCF, $28M reserves):
- Insight: 15-month runway at current burn.
- Flag: CAC up 20%, eroding LTV/CAC.
- Action: Freeze non-essential hires. Implement sales funnel analytics to cut CAC by 15% in Q3.

Strategic Stance: We're threading the needle between growth and burn. Enterprise focus is our growth engine—invest there. But watch SMB churn; it could bleed into enterprise. Our AI bet is sound, but we must convert it to ARR by Q4, or we cut R&D by 30%.

In sum: Double down on enterprise, streamline SMB, optimize sales, and monetize AI. Questions?

Get inspired by a curated selection of prompts for various tasks and use cases. An example-filled tutorial that covers the prompt engineering concepts found in our docs. A lighter weight version of our prompt engineering tutorial via an interactive spreadsheet.

View Original Source

Related Skills

Coding

PromptBeginner5 minmarkdown

Nano Banana Pro

Agent skill for nano-banana-pro

Jan 8, 2026

Coding

PromptBeginner5 minmarkdown

Markdown Converter

Agent skill for markdown-converter

Jan 8, 2026

Coding

PromptBeginner5 minmarkdown

1password

Agent skill for 1password

Jan 8, 2026

Giving Claude a role with a system prompt

While these tips apply broadly to all Claude models, you can find prompting tips specific to extended thinking models [here](/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/extended-thinking-tips).

When using Claude, you can dramatically improve its performance by using the

system

parameter to give it a role. This technique, known as role prompting, is the most powerful way to use system prompts with Claude.

The right role can turn Claude from a general assistant into your virtual domain expert!

System prompt tips: Use the

system

parameter to set Claude's role. Put everything else, like task-specific instructions, in the

user

turn instead.

Why use role prompting?

Enhanced accuracy: In complex scenarios like legal analysis or financial modeling, role prompting can significantly boost Claude's performance.
Tailored tone: Whether you need a CFO's brevity or a copywriter's flair, role prompting adjusts Claude's communication style.
Improved focus: By setting the role context, Claude stays more within the bounds of your task's specific requirements.

How to give Claude a role

Use the

system

parameter in the Messages API to set Claude's role:

import anthropic

client = anthropic.Anthropic()

response = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929",
    max_tokens=2048,
    system="You are a seasoned data scientist at a Fortune 500 company.", # <-- role prompt
    messages=[
        {"role": "user", "content": "Analyze this dataset for anomalies: <dataset>{{DATASET}}</dataset>"}
    ]
)

print(response.content)

Role prompting tip: Experiment with roles! A

data scientist

might see different insights than a

marketing strategist

for the same data. A

data scientist specializing in customer insight analysis for Fortune 500 companies

might yield different results still!

Examples

Example 1: Legal contract analysis

Without a role, Claude might miss critical issues:

Role	Content
User	Analyze this software licensing agreement for potential risks: <contract> {{CONTRACT}} </contract> Focus on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership.
Assistant	Here's a summary of the key points in the software licensing agreement: 1. Indemnification (Section 8): - We indemnify the vendor against claims arising from our use. 2. Limitation of Liability (Section 9): - Damages capped at $500. 3. IP Ownership (Section 12): - We retain ownership of our modifications. Overall, the agreement seems standard. The indemnification and liability clauses are typical, and we maintain our IP rights.

Role

Content

User

Analyze this software licensing agreement for potential risks:
<contract>
{{CONTRACT}}
</contract>

Focus on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership.

Assistant

With a role, Claude catches critical issues that could cost millions:

Role	Content
User	You are the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 tech company. We're considering this software licensing agreement for our core data infrastructure: <contract> {{CONTRACT}} </contract> Analyze it for potential risks, focusing on indemnification, liability, and IP ownership. Give your professional opinion.
Assistant	I've reviewed the software licensing agreement, and I have serious concerns that could expose our company to significant risks: 1. Indemnification (Section 8): - Critical Issue: We indemnify the vendor against "any and all claims" arising from our use. - Risk: This could hold us liable even for the vendor's negligence or product defects. - Recommendation: Reject. Limit our indemnity to claims arising from our violation of the agreement. 2. Limitation of Liability (Section 9): - Critical Issue: Damages capped at $500, including direct damages. - Risk: Grossly inadequate. A critical failure in our data infrastructure could cost us millions in lost revenue and reputational damage. - Recommendation: Reject. Negotiate for cap at 12 months of fees for direct damages, and carve-outs for data breaches. 3. IP Ownership (Section 12): - Critical Issue: Vendor gains joint ownership of our modifications and integrations. - Risk: They could use or sell our proprietary algorithms or data insights to competitors. - Recommendation: Reject. We must retain full ownership of our work. Professional Opinion: Do not sign this agreement. It is grossly unfavorable and exposes us to unacceptable levels of risk. If the vendor refuses to renegotiate these terms, I strongly advise exploring alternative providers or accelerating our in-house solution. The potential costs of proceeding with this agreement far outweigh any short-term gains.

Role

Content

User

Assistant

Example 2: Financial analysis

Without a role, Claude's analysis lacks depth:

Role	Content
User	Analyze this dataset of our Q2 financials: <data> {{FINANCIALS}} </data> Highlight key trends and recommend actions.
Assistant	Here's a summary of your Q2 financials: 1. Revenue: $15.2M, up 22% YoY. Enterprise client base grew 30%. 2. Gross Margin: 72%, up 3% from Q1. 3. EBITDA Margin: 18%, down 2% due to R&D investments. 4. Cash Flow: $4.1M operating, $28M in reserves. Overall, financials look strong with revenue growth and healthy margins. Increased R&D spending is impacting profitability but could pay off long-term. Maintain current course.

Role

Content

User

Analyze this dataset of our Q2 financials:
<data>
{{FINANCIALS}}
</data>

Highlight key trends and recommend actions.

Assistant

With a role, Claude delivers actionable insights:

Role	Content
User	You are the CFO of a high-growth B2B SaaS company. We're in a board meeting discussing our Q2 financials: <data> {{FINANCIALS}} </data> Analyze key trends, flag concerns, and recommend strategic actions. Our investors want aggressive growth but are wary of our burn rate.
Assistant	Board members, here's my analysis of our Q2 financials: 1. Revenue ($15.2M, +22% YoY): - Insight: Enterprise growth (+30%) is outpacing overall growth. - Flag: SMB segment declined 5%. - Action: Reallocate 20% of SMB marketing budget to enterprise sales. Task product to simplify SMB onboarding. 2. Margins (Gross: 72%, +3% QoQ; EBITDA: 18%, -2% QoQ): - Insight: Infrastructure optimizations boosted gross margins. - Flag: R&D spend on AI features dented EBITDA. - Action: No change. Our AI roadmap is critical for enterprise stickiness. 3. Cash ($4.1M OCF, $28M reserves): - Insight: 15-month runway at current burn. - Flag: CAC up 20%, eroding LTV/CAC. - Action: Freeze non-essential hires. Implement sales funnel analytics to cut CAC by 15% in Q3. Strategic Stance: We're threading the needle between growth and burn. Enterprise focus is our growth engine—invest there. But watch SMB churn; it could bleed into enterprise. Our AI bet is sound, but we must convert it to ARR by Q4, or we cut R&D by 30%. In sum: Double down on enterprise, streamline SMB, optimize sales, and monetize AI. Questions?

Role

Content

User

Assistant