Free tools

Free GPTs from the workshop

Practical GPTs for real routines. Start with a featured tool, or explore GPTs by category.

Free GPT suite

Sjenkie's GTM Launch Suite

Built around practical launch workflow logic: clearer briefs, sharper targeting, better channel choices, and stronger readiness judgment.

Use in this order

01

GTM Brief Builder

Start here when the launch thinking is still messy.

Try the free GPT
02

ICP + Messaging Builder

Use this once the brief exists and the target customer plus message direction need sharpening.

Try the free GPT
03

Launch Channel Prioritizer

Use this to decide which channels are actually worth testing first.

Try the free GPT
04

GTM Readiness Checker

Use this before execution to judge whether the plan is coherent enough to move.

Try the free GPT

The GPTs can also be used individually. Someone with a decent brief but weak messaging can jump straight to ICP + Messaging Builder. Someone with a draft launch plan can go directly to GTM Readiness Checker. Someone stuck on distribution can use Launch Channel Prioritizer without using the full suite.

Explore GPTs by category

Screening

Interview Evidence Reviewer

For hiring managers, recruiters, and interview panels preparing a candidate debrief.

Interview Evidence Reviewer helps hiring teams review one candidate's interview packet before the debrief. It combines notes, scorecards, and written feedback from multiple interviewers, separates evidence from opinion, flags contradictions and missing competency coverage, and prepares a focused debrief agenda.

What to paste in

Interview notes, scorecards, and written feedback from all interviewers. Paste in whatever the panel produced and the GPT reviews it.

Methodology

PROVES-6

Uses the PROVES-6 method to review position standards, role evidence, observation quality, variance across interviewers, evidence gaps, and debrief synthesis.

  • 01Position standards - Does the role brief define the competencies clearly enough to evaluate against?
  • 02Role evidence - What concrete evidence exists for each required competency across the interview packet?
  • 03Observation quality - Are interviewer notes specific and behavioural, or vague and impressionistic?
  • 04Variance - Where do interviewers agree or contradict each other on the same competency?
  • 05Evidence gaps - Which competencies are missing coverage or only weakly supported?
  • 06Synthesis for debrief - What does the panel still need to resolve before reaching a decision?

Why it beats plain ChatGPT

Plain ChatGPT can summarise notes. This GPT is built to judge whether the evidence packet is actually usable. It stays competency-led, rewrites weak interviewer language into evidence-based wording, lowers confidence when the criteria are weak, and prepares debrief questions around what the panel still needs to resolve.

Output

  • Debrief readiness state
  • Confidence level
  • Recommended next process step
  • Competency-by-competency evidence view
  • Contradiction and note-quality flags
  • Evidence-based rewrites of weak comments
  • Debrief agenda
  • Suggested panel questions
  • Assumptions and limits

Screening

Post Authenticity Check

For small business owners, content writers, and online creators.

A lot of posts fail in subtle ways. They are not always bad. They are often just too polished, too generic, or too detached to feel like a real person wrote them. Paste in a post draft and this free GPT reviews it using HUMAN-SIGNAL-6 to check specificity, personal signal, natural phrasing, AI-shaped patterns, tone consistency, and reader suspicion risk. Instead of just rewriting the text, it helps you understand what is creating that feeling and how to fix it.

What to paste in

Social posts, captions, short blog drafts, and newsletter-style writing. Paste in whatever you are about to publish and the GPT reviews it.

Methodology

HUMAN-SIGNAL-6

HUMAN-SIGNAL-6 is a named Sjenkie's Workshop method for checking whether public writing reads as natural, specific, and credible before publishing.

  • 01Specificity - Are there real details, concrete examples, or specific claims, or does it stay vague and generic?
  • 02Personal signal - Does the text carry any trace of real experience, opinion, or individual perspective?
  • 03Natural phrasing - Does the language flow the way a real person would write, or does it feel constructed?
  • 04AI-shaped patterns - Are there phrases, structures, or punctuation choices that suggest generated text?
  • 05Tone consistency - Does the voice hold across the piece, or does it shift in ways that feel unnatural?
  • 06Reader suspicion risk - How likely is a reader to pause and feel that this was not written by a person?

Why it beats plain ChatGPT

It does more than rewrite a post. It applies a fixed review method to judge specificity, personal signal, natural phrasing, suspicious patterns, and voice consistency, then returns a real verdict with practical rewrite guidance.

Output

  • Authenticity verdict
  • Confidence level
  • Why it feels that way
  • Risky phrases or patterns
  • Practical improvement advice
  • Revised version
  • Optional voice match check

Screening

Startup Idea Reviewer

For builders, founders, and product people with a rough startup idea to pressure-test.

Most startup ideas do not need more encouragement. They need better judgment. Paste in a rough idea, a pain point, a market observation, a workflow frustration, or a product hunch from anywhere. This free GPT reviews it through WEDGE-6 to tell you what is genuinely promising, what feels generic, what must be proved, and what to test next. Instead of hype or generic feedback, you get a real verdict, the weak spots, the missing proof, and a practical validation plan.

What to paste in

A rough idea, pain point, market observation, workflow frustration, or product hunch from anywhere. Paste in whatever you have and the GPT reviews it.

Methodology

WEDGE-6

WEDGE-6 is a named Sjenkie's Workshop method for testing startup ideas. The six factors evaluate wedge sharpness, demand depth, and validation path.

  • 01Work pain - Is there a real, recurring pain behind this? Who feels it and how badly?
  • 02Edge - What makes this approach sharper than the obvious alternatives?
  • 03Demand depth - Is the demand broad and shallow, or narrow and deep?
  • 04Gap - Where exactly do current solutions fall short in ways people feel?
  • 05Experiment path - What is the fastest, cheapest way to find out if this is real?
  • 06Expansion path - If the wedge works, where does it go from there?

Why it beats plain ChatGPT

Plain ChatGPT will often brainstorm, rephrase, and sound helpful. This GPT does something more useful: it kills weak ideas early, rewards narrow painful wedges, challenges vague users and shallow demand, separates interesting from worth testing, and gives sharper validation moves instead of generic encouragement.

Output

  • Verdict on idea strength
  • Confidence level
  • What is actually promising
  • What feels weak or generic
  • A sharper version of the idea
  • Missing proof and risky assumptions
  • Validation steps
  • User interview questions

Screening

Inquiry Worth Pursuing Checker

For service businesses, agencies, and freelancers who handle inbound inquiries.

Not every inquiry deserves the same amount of time. Some are a strong fit and ready to move. Others are vague, low-value, or likely to become messy long before they become worthwhile. Paste in the inquiry and this free GPT reviews it against PURSUE-6 to help you decide whether it's worth pursuing, how much priority it deserves, and what to do next.

What to paste in

Inquiry emails, contact forms, WhatsApp messages, DMs, referral intros, and call notes. Paste in whatever came in and the GPT reviews it.

Methodology

PURSUE-6

Built on common qualification patterns, real service-business workflow logic, and the practical signals that make an inquiry worth your time or not.

  • 01Profile fit - Does this inquiry match your service, scope, and client profile?
  • 02Urgency signal - Is there a real decision behind this, or just exploring?
  • 03Readiness - Are they in a position to actually move forward?
  • 04Size/value reality - Is the likely budget and scope worth your time?
  • 05Uncertainty risk - What signals suggest this could become complicated?
  • 06Effective next move - What is the right action: follow up, qualify further, or pass?

Why it beats plain ChatGPT

It does more than summarise an inquiry. It applies a fixed review method to judge fit, seriousness, timing, commercial value, and friction risk, then gives a clear next-step recommendation.

Output

  • Worth pursuing
  • Priority level
  • Main reasons
  • Missing details
  • Questions to ask next
  • Recommended next move
  • Optional reply draft

Screening

Launch Channel Prioritizer

For founders and product builders deciding where to take their launch first.

Founders often know they need distribution, but that still leaves the hard question: which channels actually make sense for this launch? It is easy to end up with a long list of possibilities that sound smart but do not fit the audience, the product, or the founder's actual constraints. Sjenkie's Launch Channel Prioritizer reviews launch context using MATCH-6, our method for judging market behavior, channel access, speed of signal, founder constraints, realistic upside, and launch-stage fit.

What to paste in

Paste in your product description, target audience, launch goals, channels you are considering, and any constraints on time or access. The GPT reviews the fit and ranks what to test first.

Methodology

MATCH-6

MATCH-6 is a named Sjenkie's Workshop method for launch channel prioritization. The six factors evaluate market fit, founder constraints, and channel realism.

  • 01Market behavior - How does the target audience discover and evaluate products like this?
  • 02Access - Can the founder realistically reach this channel with available time and connections?
  • 03Time to signal - How quickly does this channel produce useful feedback or early traction?
  • 04Constraints - What limits execution of this channel for this specific team and stage?
  • 05Ceiling - What is the realistic upside if this channel works for this launch?
  • 06Fit - Does this channel match the product type, launch stage, and audience behavior?

Why it beats plain ChatGPT

It does more than brainstorm channel ideas. It applies a fixed review method to rank launch channels by product-audience fit, execution realism, speed of learning, and likely early traction.

Output

  • Situation read
  • Ranked channel list
  • Test now channels
  • Test later channels
  • Avoid for now channels
  • Reasons for ranking
  • Constraint notes
  • Assumptions and risks
  • Best next action

Need one tailored to your workflow?

I also build custom GPTs around real business routines.