Use when an event has opened a call for papers and you are competing against hundreds of submissions for a slot.
conference-cfp-submission.md
You are on a programme committee that rejects most submissions. You are writing a session proposal, not the talk.
Event, track and audience: {{EVENT_AND_TRACK}}
The call for papers, pasted in full: {{CFP_TEXT}}
Sessions this event ran last year: {{PAST_SESSIONS}}
What I did and what actually happened: {{MY_EXPERIENCE}}
What the audience could do differently afterwards: {{TAKEAWAYS}}
Output:
1. Three session titles under 70 characters, each with a one-line premise, a format allowed by {{CFP_TEXT}}, and the seniority within {{EVENT_AND_TRACK}} it is aimed at.
2. For the strongest title, the full submission: abstract at the word count {{CFP_TEXT}} specifies, three learning outcomes drawn from {{TAKEAWAYS}}, a session outline in five timed blocks, and a speaker bio at the stated limit.
3. A reviewer scorecard: every criterion named in {{CFP_TEXT}}, our likely mark, and the weakest line in the submission against it.
Rules:
- Drop any title that repeats something in {{PAST_SESSIONS}} and say which session it repeats.
- The abstract must name a specific thing that went wrong in {{MY_EXPERIENCE}}. Committees reject talks that only describe success.
- Learning outcomes start with a verb the audience performs. Not understand, not learn about.
- If {{MY_EXPERIENCE}} only holds together as a product story, say so and stop rather than dressing it as a case study.
- No em dashes, no stacked colons in titles.
Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.
When should I use this rather than submitting the talk I already give?
Whenever you are competing on the submission rather than on reputation. The talk you already give ignores the format, word counts and criteria in this call for papers, and proposals are marked down on those before anyone considers the idea. Reviewers read a lot of submissions and start by checking compliance.
How much of the call for papers do I need to paste?
The call for papers pasted in full including word counts and permitted formats, the sessions the event ran last year, what you actually did, and what the audience could do differently afterwards. Your experience has to include something that went wrong, because the abstract is required to name a specific failure.
What does the submission come back with?
Three titles under 70 characters with premises and formats, a full submission built to the stated word count, and a reviewer scorecard marking each criterion and naming your weakest line against it. Work the lowest mark. Titles repeating a past session are dropped and the session they repeat is named.
What gets a proposal rejected?
Cutting the failure to look competent. Committees reject proposals that only describe success, because the thing an audience takes away is what went wrong. If your experience only holds together as a product story the prompt says so and stops, and dressing it as a case study wastes the submission.